The Shamley Silhouette – Chapter 4

Chapter 4: Experiment

“He is the only director I know of who knew absolutely everything that was going to be on the screen. He didn’t have to look through a viewfinder, he knew. This was probably the most difficult picture in that regard because: ‘Was the wall going to be moved to the right spot?’ [or] ‘Would the camera be in the right spot?’; but when it was all set up, he didn’t bother to look, he knew.”

-Arthur Laurents, screenwriter of Rope, on Hitchcock’s approach to filmmaking in the 1998 featurette “Rope Unleashed”.

Good Evening…

It is not a notion right off the top of one’s head to think of Alfred Hitchcock as an independent filmmaker. Our association with his work stems primarily from those familiar logos that do inspire a sense of prestige and quality in even the greatest cynic (whether those attributes are truly present or not). The legacy of Hitchcock is intertwined with the studio system no matter the free reign he was given, and it tends to be solely defined by the way we look at independent film in general. We have a broader definition of it nowadays with looking at it through budgets and not the actual formation of the project and the term “indie film” is used in several ways. Putting aside merited specifics on what is truly independent (self distribution is a whole discussion in and of itself) , a very easy understanding of how it works comes from the most commercial aspect: a film made through means outside the major studio system that is then picked up by a major studio after the creation. A negative pickup, if you will. When it comes to the Master of Suspense, there was a time when he sought to follow this notion rather than be tied to the constraints of the moguls. It is an example that proves to be a repeating tale throughout film history, usually retaining the unhappy outcome. Despite the failings at a business level, these treks into independent territory have produced some of the most beloved and intriguing classics that we continue to study to this day. Not the least of which is 1948’s ‘Rope’; one of the two films produced by Transatlantic Pictures, the production company created by Sidney Bernstein and Alfred Hitchcock.

Transatlantic Pictures was birthed out of Hitchcock’s desire to avoid experiences that he had suffered during his time under contract with David O. Selznick. His experience was one of frustration and artistic restriction at the hands of the domineering movie mogul who clashed him all to often during the making of films such as ‘Rebecca’ and ‘Spellbound’. His experience with Selznick left him wanting more control and voice in all aspects of production, not too dissimilar from the freedom he had in his early years in Britain. In those early years, he met and became friends with film entrepreneur Sidney Bernstein. Berstein’s story is one that is thoroughly intertwined with the early formation of British Cinema. Starting with the formation of a circuit of sixty or so theaters from property his family had owned; he went on to co-found the London Film Society in 1925 and formed Granada Theaters Ltd in 1930, which later became a large media conglomerate that existed on it’s own until a merger in 2004. Berstein met Hitchcock in 1925, just as Hitchcock was beginning his ascent into becoming the first unique voice in British cinema with his work at British Gaumont/Gainsbourough. Years later during World War II, Berstein brought Hitchcock back to Britain to help make documentary shorts for the Ministry of Information. The result of this collaboration was ‘German Concentration Camps Factual Survey’, the documentary that was to unveil the crimes and horrors of the Nazi Party for the British public. The film was shelved for years after one screening in September of 1945, but the teaming of Bernstein and Hitchcock was destined to continue. They had decided that once Hitchcock had finished his contract with Selznick, they would go into production for themselves, and Transatlantic Pictures was born. The goal of the company was to be able to produce films is both Hollywood and London, with offices set up in Bernstein’s Granada Theaters. They had secured the release of their productions with a distribution deal at Warner Brothers pictures, and choose something bold as their first venture: a film based off a play inspired by the Leopold-Loeb murder case in Chicago.

The formation, execution, and final results of ‘Rope’ as a film, breaks new ground in almost every aspect of its existence.

The story is based upon the 1929 stage play ‘Rope’s End’, written by Patrick Hamilton. Having wanted to attempt to film a stage play as a movie for some time, this particular play’s one room setting provided the perfect space to do so. The picture, as designed by Hitchcock was comprised of 10 unbroken shots ranging from 5 to 10 minutes a piece. The shots would end in places such as the back of a character or on a piece of furniture in order to create the illusion of the film being made in one single, continuous shot and perpetuating the feeling of real time. For the period especially, this was a gamble of technical acumen that seems perfectly fitted for the filmmaker who runs his ship on a strict and pre-planned basis on every outing. ‘Rope’ was no different, with the production having to have technical precision of the highest concentration to pull off it’s magic trick.

The picture deals with the aftermath of a murder committed by two young men, Phillip (Farley Granger) and Brandon (John Dall). They strangle their classmate David and have hidden him in a book chest in the living room of their apartment while they prepare for a party they are to hold with many people close to their victim. It is all part of their pursuit to commit the perfect murder, a notion and Nietzschean philosophy of superiority they learned from their prep school teacher, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart).

What follows in the 81 minutes of Rope is a ticking bomb under the table, worthy of Hitchcock’s usual modus operandi, stuck firmly in this one apartment. In order to execute this feat, Hitchcock does exactly what he wanted to do: he films a play. Utilizing rolling sets and a team of crewmen at the ready, they were able to keep up with the camera’s flow throughout each long take. Prop men were at the ready to move furniture in and out of the way with each camera move, sound men were constantly in motion to grab every actor at every moment they were within the camera’s eye, and the actors were strictly beholden to the various technical cues in order to be where they needed to be in each moment. During a press conference on the set, James Stewart was said to have remarked, “The really important thing being rehearsed here is the camera, not the actors!” Within the final result the true fluidity desired was not accomplished, with the editing together of each long shot coming up short from a perspective that seems to be multi-generational. Contemporary critics and modern critics seem to possess the same phrase, “The experiment doesn’t work.” On the surface level that may be so, but there seems to be a call for this film to be met on the terms of a new frontier. In the wake of a film like Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s ‘Birdman’, one can look at Rope as the promise being made that this form of filmmaking can be done and done well, regardless of how it is accomplished. The cutaways in each shot change is indeed obvious and distracting, but if you are drawn in by the story, it is possible that one can be willing to ignore the unseen Bulky Technicolor elephant in the room. The ultimate achievement of ‘Rope’ as a technical experiment ultimately lies in what happens in each shot, with certain moves cultivating the same effect that would be present in a typically shot Hitchcock picture. There is a moment during the party where the camera zeroes in on the chest where the body is being hidden while the guests are in the room (it had been set up as a buffet for the guests). As the camera sits on the chest, we see housekeeper Ms. Wilson (Edith Evanson), cleaning up the chest and putting away the decorations adorning it. We are treated in that moment to an ideal example of how Hitchcock draws out the suspense by playing on the audience’s anxiety of whether or not the body will be discovered.

It is a technique that Hitchcock has used throughout his career. Here’s Hitchcock to tell you all about it:

“There is a distinct difference between “suspense” and “surprise,” and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I’ll explain what I mean.

We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let’s suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, “Boom!” There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware that the bomb is going to explode at one o’clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: “You shouldn’t be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!”

In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.”

Rope may be one of the purest and most extreme examples how how that theory is played out. Hitchcock pulls this thread out for almost the entirety of the picture, keeping us on our toes for what feels like an eternity. One could argue that it’s drawn too long compared to individualized sequences in other pictures he had made prior and after ‘Rope’, and they would be justified in this perspective. After all, how long can you realistically expect an audience to be kept on their toes before the novelty gets tiresome? Yet from the perspective of this all being one giant experiment, it seems (at least to this “author’s” mind) that it proves successful thanks in part to the intrigue and due diligence that Granger and Dall give their characters and how we are hooked by their caper and its possible outcomes. Hitchcock is indeed pushing the audiences patience, and that is exactly part of this film experiments point.

Drawing out the film as he does is enhanced (albeit clunkily) by the execution of playing it out in real time. Accomplishing this goes beyond the confines of the apartments interior. Recalling the previous article on Rear Window and it’s meticulous detail in turning every single apartment into a living being, ‘Rope’ is the testing ground for this. Using a cyclorama for the view outside the apartment, Hitchcock instructed his team to light the buildings and exterior signage with their real-life lighting conditions. Combined with the overall adjustment for the cyclorama to go from day to night, Hitchcock provides a living breathing world outside to add depth to the world he is working with. It ultimately helps with the impact of the finale, where Cadell fires off the boys’ gun to get the police to come investigate. The nightlight exterior with glowing neon, combined with the sounds of people outside concerned all draws us in on the final shot of Cadell, Phillip, and Brandon waiting silently for their fates to unfold. This living, breathing world is further enhanced by Hitchcock’s first outing with Technicolor. It’s a great starter to what would be a deep commitment down the line to utilizing color in film in all the best possible ways. There’s a sense of things not being as “poppy” as they will be in future Hitchcock pictures, but ‘Ropes’ color palette add’s to the terror in it’s own way, with a slight wash-out in the palette helping to lend an air of frigidity to the whole proceedings, which naturally blend with the story of murder for the sake of murder.

Alas, despite the ambitions and positive executions of ‘Rope’, the film was received flatly. Taking in barely enough to cover the $2 million dollar price tag, it was almost immediately the beginning of the end for Transatlantic Pictures. The second blow came with the release of Hitchcock’s 1949 picture ‘Under Capricorn ‘ (which has a unique story to save for later), which was unable to even meet its budget at the box office. The final blow was when Warner Brothers assumed full control over the production of Hitchcock’s ‘Stage Fright’ (1950), thus sealing Transatlantic’s doom. The partnership dissolved, and this ambitious and creatively freeing idea was no more. Gone was the ability to avoid the studio moguls and their badgering. There are two consolations of this whole affair:

1) Hitchcock was about to enter his golden period with the studios, who gave him more free reign than even he could imagine.

And

2) We have a unique and fascinating film to further dissect called ‘Rope’.

————————————————————————————————-

Till the next article… Good Night…..

Oh, P.S.

I realize this article is lacking in the linked videos, so to make up for that, here is an excerpt from the famous Hitchcock/Truffaut interviews where they discuss ‘Rope’ and color in cinema.

Show Time: The Blacklist’s Red & Liz vs. Other May/September Romances

OR: “Why Red & Liz Have a Better Shot Than Most”

“What is the deal with you two, anyways? It’s what everybody wants to know. Some say it’s a daddy-daughter thing. Others swear it’s May/September. I prefer to believe it’s a little of both.”

–Mathias Solomon about Raymond ‘Red’ Reddington and FBI Agent Episode Keen on The Blacklist Episode 3.05 “Arioch Cain”

I’ll admit that when I first saw The Blacklist pilot in 2013, only a few days after it aired, I was confused by the weird dynamic between Red and Liz. Like many, I assumed that he was her father, and that this show was following on the heels of Taken in having a father-daughter crime/action thing going on. However, maybe four or five episodes into the show, I started to see that the father-daughter read of their dynamic was off. And, by the time that Red denied being Liz’s father in Episode 1.10, I was fully on board with the idea that — rather than being a father-daughter pairing — these two were going to be an endgame couple.

And, whenever Episode 3.05 aired and we got this fun little fourth-wall- breaking quote from Solomon, asking what the deal was between Red and Liz, it was great to see one of the show’s bigger villains (at that point) acknowledging that Red and Liz can have a dynamic that is something between the two. There can be a kind of mentoring dynamic where he is her elder and is teaching her how to navigate the world, while one or both of them can be in love and want to pursue a relationship with the other person.

(Author’s Note: While I rewrote the above intro, the rest of the article is something I posted on my social media about a year ago and re-posted here with the Nerds’ permission. At the end, it starts talking about the status of Red and Liz’s relationship post-Season 5. I realize that the events of Season 6 change some of the dynamics — with Liz telling Red that she loves him and then subsequently ‘dad-zoning’ him, and then Red and Katarina having a weird sensual moment at the end of the S6 finale, so I threw a little note at the bottom to address the developments in Season 6.)

Now, I have to tell you all that May/September relationships is a trope that frequently pops up in my favorite media or among my favorite fictional couples. And, one day, while trying to plot out another Blacklist-related article, I thought of several other examples of “older men falling in love with younger women” in various books, movies, etc. that I enjoy. Sometimes the relationships work out; sometimes they don’t.

Today, I’d like to use them as examples for why I think Red & Liz have a great chance of being endgame and becoming canon. I think it’d also be helpful for fans who decry that Red’s affection for Liz is paternal and ONLY paternal to see other examples of older men falling for younger women, including some who fall for young ladies in their care (adopted daughters, students, etc.) I could include Bill & The Bride from Kill Bill, but I’ve already done another post about the similarities between Red & Liz and them, so I won’t repeat myself here.

Now, I’m not saying all of the below pairings are HEALTHY relationships, mind you; but this type of dynamic isn’t unprecedented, and the interweaving patterns among them paves a pretty clear path for Red & Liz to become canon. In other words, these examples give us criteria for successful May/September relationships in media.

I’d like to briefly examine the plot details and character dynamics of 10 fictional pairings between older men and women who are AT LEAST 15 years younger than the men (oftentimes, they’re more like 20+ years younger) and where the man has proposed to or professed his love for the young lady in question.

I realize that there are probably other examples of May/September romances that won’t be on this list, but I’m only writing about pairings and media that I’m familiar with. I’m also going through them in no particular order.

As you read about each pairing — again, remember that not all of them work out — look for patterns in WHY they do or don’t work out. What impediments or obstacles there are to overcome, whether physical, emotional, etc.

SPOILERS FOR ALL THE FOLLOWING MEDIA LISTED

Mr. Boldwood, Bathsheba Everdeen from Far From the Madding Crowd

Bathsheba, after she inherits a small estate from her uncle, becomes Mr. Boldwood’s neighbor. He initially shows no interest in her; but after she sends him a valentine on a dare, he becomes obsessed and infatuated with her. He makes her an offer of marriage, and she says she’ll consider it. Later, she ends up marrying another man (who’s closer to her in age), and Boldwood becomes enraged at the match. When Bathsheba’s husband goes missing and is presumed dead, Boldwood again offers himself to Bathsheba, and she again says she’ll consider it. Her husband returns and Boldwood flies into a rage and kills him. After Boldwood goes to prison, Bathsheba marries Gabriel Oakes, who had been in love with her before she inherited her estate and moved above him socially.

Now, I’m not entirely sure on the age gap, as I haven’t read the novel. But based on the two miniseries adaptations I’ve seen, I’d guess Bathsheba is around 20, and Boldwood is supposed to be 40+.

It’s clear that Bathsheba doesn’t dislike Mr. Boldwood, but as the story progresses, she becomes seemingly more and more uncomfortable around him. After her husband goes missing, she really only considers Boldwood’s offer because her estate is doing poorly financially, and marrying him would give her the wealth and resources to help save it.

The Phantom (a.k.a. Erik), Christine Daae from The Phantom of the Opera

Let me say that there are several versions of the story, but I’m sticking to the story as seen in the original novel, the ALW musical and the Yeston/Koppit musical, as they’re all pretty similar.

When Christine comes to the opera house as a young woman (maybe 15-16?), she hears “the Angel of Music” (really the Phantom), who offers to coach her in singing. Eventually, she becomes good enough to take over the leading soprano role in the opera house’s productions. The Phantom is pleased, and reveals himself to her for the first time. At the same time, her childhood sweetheart Raoul also reappears in her life, clearly in love with her. Eventually, there’s a showdown after the Phantom kidnaps Christine and threatens Raoul’s life if she doesn’t marry him. Christine agrees to marry the Phantom, but (after Christine kisses him) he regrets what he’s done and lets them go so they can be together.

It’s unclear how old Christine was when she first started taking lessons from the Phantom, but she’s probably 18-20 during the ‘present day’ events of the novel. She’s about the same age in both the stage musicals. In the Yeston/Koppit version, we get to see the Phantom coaching her, and I’d estimate that he only does so for a few months before Raoul reappears and the whole ‘love triangle’ thing goes down. It’s also unclear, given the Phantom’s horrid features, to tell exactly how old he is. But (in the novel) the Persian lists the Phantom’s entire CV, and it’s probably fair to estimate he’s about 35-40, if not older.

It should be noted that Christine doesn’t return the Phantom’s feelings exactly, but in every version, she has some measure of affection, respect and admiration for him. Obviously, she doesn’t love him in the same way that she loves Raoul, but she still has some measure of love for him as her teacher and as a talented musician in his own right. I should mention that in the ALW version, a few times Christine psychologically projects her father’s spirit onto the Angel of Music/The Phantom, and the Phantom (in that version), definitely uses that to his advantage as a way to lure her in and try to get closer to her (physically and emotionally).

Judge Turpin, Johanna from Sweeney Todd

Johanna is Judge Turpin’s ward, whom he took custody of after he sentenced her father to be transported to another country so he could sexually assault her mother. Johanna’s mother goes mad after he does so, and as no one else is around to raise Johanna, Turpin takes her in. As she matures and becomes a young woman, he’s seen to be incredibly possessive of Johanna. He spies on her and fantasizes about her; and when a young man “ganders” at Johanna’s window from the street, Turpin threatens him. He is clearly deranged and perverted. When Johanna tries to run away with the young man, Turpin sends her to the madhouse. Later, he meets his end by Johanna’s father (Sweeney Todd), and Johanna and the young man run off together.

From what I can tell of the movie’s flashbacks, Johanna is very young when Turpin takes her in. Probably a year old; maybe younger. And, the bulk of the story takes place when Johanna is about 15. This is when Turpin proposes, or at least, intends to propose to Johanna. It’s not really stated how old Turpin is, but he’s at least the same age as Sweeney Todd (Johanna’s father), if not older.

It should also be noted that Johanna does not return his affections at all. She tries to respect him, as her guardian, but she’s definitely picked up on his creeper vibes, and doesn’t consider him ‘husband material’ at all.

Also, this is probably our darkest of the pairings; so apologies for that.

Mr. Rochester, Jane Eyre from Jane Eyre

I’ve already compared Rochester/Jane to Red/Liz before, so I’ll try to go through this pretty fast.

Jane, fresh out of school, works at Rochester’s house as a governess for his ward. Eventually, Jane and Rochester fall in love and prepare to get married. At the wedding, it’s revealed that Rochester is already married and his wife (who lives in the attic of his house) is an insane woman who has been responsible for a lot of mishaps that have occurred since Jane arrived. With this revealed, Jane leaves Rochester — still in love with him. She wanders around, and eventually settles at a village where the local reverend asks her to marry him so that she might accompany him on his missionary trip. She declines because she doesn’t love him, and eventually goes back to Rochester (who’s wife has now died in an accident, which also left him blind and handicapped). Jane and Rochester eventually get married.

It’s been a while since I read the book, but Jane is specifically stated to be young enough to be Rochester’s biological child. She’s 18-20; he’s probably in his early 40s.

You’ll note that this is one of a few examples where the couple actually gets together.

Edmond Dantes (a.k.a. The Count of Monte Cristo), Haydee from The Count of Monte Cristo

Another comparison that I touched on briefly before, so I won’t spend much time on this pairing.

The novel skips over a long period of time, from when Dantes escapes prison to when he has Albert (the son of his rival and his former fiancee) kidnapped in Venice. But, during that time, Dantes found Haydee, an orphan, and purchases her to be his slave. Haydee proves to be very crucial in his revenge plot against Ferdinand (his rival); and at the end, Haydee asks to go away with Dantes, that two of them might be ~together~.

It’s been a long time since I read the book, and the best adaptation I’ve ever seen was an anime version (Gankutsuou). But, from my recollection — and correct me if I’m wrong — Haydee was maybe 6 when Dantes found her. And she’s probably 14-16 at the end of the novel, when the bulk of the story takes place.

Despite being his “slave,” Haydee is really more of Dantes’ ward. He doesn’t force her to do anything, and allows her more freedom than an actual slave would have. In “Gankutsuou,” at least, she seems to have some authority over the other servants in the household. She’s clearly very devoted to Dantes, as he was her savior — the man who gave her a home.

Again, one of the few examples where the couple ends up together.

**Petyr Baelish (a.k.a. Littlefinger), Sansa Stark from Game of Thrones TV Show / A Song of Ice & Fire Book Series**

One of two couples from GOT I’ll be talking about. I realize the show is ahead of the books, so I’ll be drawing on elements from both.

Sansa first meets Littlefinger when she comes to King’s Landing with her father in book 1/season 1. Petyr clearly shows some kind of weird interest in her; but it’s not until later — after Sansa is married off to Tyrion — that Littlefinger kidnaps/rescues her and takes her “home” to the Vale (where her aunt lives). After Littlefinger marries then kills Sansa’s aunt, he becomes her defacto guardian. In the books, at this point, Sansa has been hiding out as his bastard daughter Alayne. In the show, Littlefinger goes on to arrange a marriage to Sansa and Ramsay Bolton (who’s a dick). And then after Littlefinger has helped Sansa defeat Ramsay and take back Winterfell (her true home), he declares his love for her. Sansa is unsurprised by this, and rejects his offer but doesn’t kick him out of Winterfell. About a season after this happens, Sansa has him executed for crimes he committed against her family.

You’ll note that it’s slightly different from book to show, but in the book, Littlefinger sees Sansa (per the author) both as a faux daughter and as a love interest. She is the daughter of Catelyn, the woman he loved as a young boy and whom he has never gotten over. Now, he sees Sansa as the daughter he might’ve had with Cat, while also seeing her as a young Cat.

And, again, in the book, Littlefinger acts in a weird mix of paternal and romantic (such as calling her beautiful and kissing her).

As for the age difference, Littlefinger is a few years younger than Sansa’s mother. So, he’s probably… 30-35. Sansa, meanwhile, was like 11 when she first met him. And she’s 13 or 14 in the upcoming book, The Winds of Winter. In the show, though, she’s probably closer to 18 when Littlefinger ‘proposes’ at Winterfell at the end of Season 6.

In both the book and the show, Sansa has some measure of gratitude for Littlefinger at various points in the story. She’s grateful to him for his friendship in King’s Landing, as she feels that he’s one of the few people she can trust (in the show). And after he brings her to the Vale, she remarks how he essentially rescued her from the Lannisters in doing so. She clearly doesn’t return his feelings in either book or show; but given that she’s younger in the book and is trying to maintain her cover and stay on his good side, she doesn’t really rebuke him either. His feelings toward her definitely make her uncomfortable in both book and show.

While his fate is uncertain right now in the books, given what’s happened to him on GOT, I’d say Littlefinger’s probably not an endgame match for Sansa.

And speaking of GOT…

Jorah Mormont, Daenerys Targaryen **from Game of Thrones TV Show / A Song of Ice & Fire Book Series**

Dany first meets Jorah at her wedding to Khal Drogo. Jorah is sworn to her brother, but stays at her side as part of her (and her brother’s) entourage. He helps her get to know her new people, the Dothraki, and eventually turns on her brother to serve her. After Khal Drogo dies and Dany ‘births’ dragons, he swears to serve her for the rest of his life, and stays by her side through several subsequent books. All this time, though, Jorah has been spying on Dany and only stops midway through Book 2; she doesn’t find out until late Book 3 (IIRC). She decides to exile him for his betrayal. Again, the exact plot timeline differs from book to show. In the show, Jorah has reunited with Dany after his exile and she has forgiven him. He continues to serve her, and is clearly jealous and upset when she takes on new lovers. In the books, Jorah declares his love to Dany in early Book 3; and in the show, Jorah declares his love for her mid-S6.

Again, I’m not exactly sure how old Jorah is, but based on the ASOIAF’s internal calendar, he’s about 45 when he meets Dany in Book 1. She, meanwhile, is 13. When exactly Jorah falls in love with her isn’t clear, but I’d say mid-Book 1; in the show, Jorah says he’s loved her since he first saw her.

In both book and show, Dany has a clear regard for Jorah, although she doesn’t return his affections romantically, and she has other (younger) love interests. She appreciates his protection, his strength, his counsel, his devotion… all of which she says she relies on at some point. In S4, Dany calls him her “most trusted adviser, my most valued general, and my dearest friend.” There’s also a long-running joke among GOT fans that Jorah has been “friend-zoned” by Dany, as she knows by book/season 2 that he’s in love with her, even though he hasn’t said so at that point.

Likewise, while Jorah’s fate is uncertain right now in the books, given what’s happened to him and Dany on GOT, I’d say they’re not going to end up together in the books.

Colonel Brandon, Marianne Dashwood from Sense & Sensibility

Marianne, who’s 17, moves with her family to a new cottage; their neighbors introduce them to Colonel Brandon, who immediately falls for Marianne. The guy clearly has a type, as he compares Marianne to another woman he was previously in love with, saying they both have the same intensity of feeling and sweet temperament. When the neighbors inform Marianne that Brandon has fallen for her, she’s awkwarded-out at the idea, as he’s 35 and “too old” for her. She admits that he’s a worthier companion, conversion-wise, than anyone else in the neighborhood, but she seeks to avoid him after his desires are made known to her. Meanwhile, she falls for Willoughby, a younger man who comes into the neighborhood and befriends Marianne and her family. Marianne and Willoughby act close enough that people begin to wonder if they’re secretly engaged, but Willoughby leaves suddenly, leaving Marianne distraught. Anyway, long story short, Willoughby ditches Marianne for another woman with more money and Marianne finds out he’s not at all noble or good, as he’d ruined another woman before meeting her. During the time it was rumored Marianne and Willoughby were engaged, Brandon — upset at the match for multiple reasons — makes it clear that he only wants Marianne to be happy. But, with Willoughby out of the way and Marianne finally starting to get over him, he eventually proposes to her and she accepts.

So, another thing that’s always weirded me out about the age gap between Brandon and Marianne, is that Brandon has a female ward who’s only two years younger than Marianne. Granted, his ward doesn’t live with him, and he seems to regard her in a distant, paternal way, but I still think it’s weird that he falls for a 17-year-old when he’s the guardian of a 15-year-old. But, yeah, things were different back then.

Anyway, unlike some of these other pairings, it’s made pretty clear to Marianne from the start that Colonel Brandon is a potential romantic match for her. She never sees him in a fatherly way or as a man in a position of authority over her. Even before she knew of his interest in her, she regarded him as a friendly neighbor. And, again, she doesn’t initially hate him or love him; she regards him in a platonic sense. Later, though, she realizes that she’s in love with him and they get married.

Elias Ainsworth, Chise Hatori from The Ancient Magus’ Bride

The only entry on here that’s from a manga/anime. Chise, 15, has special magical properties that make her life difficult. She wants to commit suicide, but someone convinces her to sell herself in a magical auction, where Elias buys her. Elias informs Chise he’s bought her to be his apprentice, and then at the very end of the first episode/chapter, he also announces that — in addition to being his apprentice — he also bought her to be his bride. The two go on a lot of adventures, including finding out about Elias’ dark past and Chise’s traumatic history, and the two eventually get “married.” Elias and Chise also agree that just as Elias teaches Chise about magic, she is to teach him about humans and emotions.

Now I should mention that Elias isn’t technically human; he’s some kind of mix-breed of a magical creature… probably a wendigo. And we’re not exactly sure how old he is. Hundreds of years old, at least, as we see in his backstory. Chise, meanwhile, is 15.

I should also note that their relationship doesn’t start out at all healthy, and they both have to do a lot of work to better themselves individually. Initially, Elias keeps important truths from Chise and also gets jealous of her friends and becomes possessive of her. Chise, meanwhile, becomes very loyal and attached to Elias quite quickly, saying that she’ll always stay with him. She sees him as someone who has provided a home and a sense of security and warmth, which she always desperately craved. He provides her with a sense of belonging — she belongs to him, she belongs by his side, at his home, etc.

Also note that Elias announces himself as Chise’s romantic interest at almost the same time he announces he’s her guardian/teacher. So, while she might’ve initially seen him only as an authority figure, it’s only a few days later that he announces his full intentions.

Mr. John Jarndyce, Esther Summerson from Bleak House

Esther is an orphan who was raised by her aunt, secluded and away from the world. Her aunt dies when she’s 13/14, and she falls into the care of John Jarndyce. Now, she doesn’t actually meet him after her aunt dies; instead, he acts through a lawyer and she accepts his offer to be sent to school. When she’s around 18, Jarndyce sends for her so that she can be companion to another ward of his, Ada. Jarndyce brings Esther, Ada and another ward Rick to his house, and their lives progress somewhat pleasantly. As we find out later in the story, Jarndyce — after he found out about Esther’s existence — had dreamed of one day making her his bride when she was older. Eventually, Rick and Ada pair off, leaving Jarndyce to propose to Esther. She accepts, but they decide to keep the engagement a secret. Meanwhile, Esther has another, younger love interest (Allan Woodcourt), but he went away to sea, and Esther figured they would never meet again. However, after she and Jarndyce are engaged, Woodcourt returns and proposes to her. She refuses, saying she’s already engaged. Jarndyce figures out that Esther and Woodcourt love each other, and breaks off his engagement to Esther so the other two can be happy.

As far as I can tell, it’s never stated in the novel how old Jarndyce is. It’s safe to assume he’s probably 40+. Esther is about 18 when she comes to live with him at Bleak House, and I’d say at least a year or two passes over the course of the story. Again, remember that Esther might’ve been in Jarndyce’s care from age 14, but she never saw or met him until she was 18.

So, while Jarndyce clearly has intentions toward Esther from the beginning, Esther always regards him as a very kindly man who has taken her on as her guardian. In the novel, she is constantly calling him “Guardian.” Honestly, it’s really annoying. In the miniseries adaptation, she notes several times that she regards him as a fatherly figure, which makes him uncomfortable. Hell, after he’s proposed and she’s accepted, he asks that they keep the engagement a secret to give Esther time to get used to the idea, because — and I quote Jarndyce’s dialogue in the miniseries here — “You thought of me more as a father; rather than a lover.” Regardless, throughout the whole of the novel, Esther has a powerful regard for him, mainly springing from a tremendous sense of gratitude for what he’s done for her. Jarndyce even mentions this when he breaks off the engagement, saying that he took advantage of her gratitude and affection for him when he proposed to her.

###

WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN FOR RED AND LIZ?

You may or may not have picked up on the patterns, but from the above examples, a few things become clear:

1) THE MORE HEROIC, OR AT LEAST SYMPATHETIC, THE MALE CHARACTER IS, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT THE MAY/SEPTEMBER PAIRING WILL END UP TOGETHER.

As you saw, the more villainous characters didn’t end up with their love interests at all.

Turpin, Littlefinger and Mr. Boldwood all fall into deep ‘villain’ territory. Jorah and The Phantom maybe aren’t pure villains like those three, but they’ve committed pretty serious offenses against their love interests, so that puts them more in ‘anti-hero’ or ‘tragic hero’ camp.

Jarndyce is the only purely heroic character who DOESN’T end up with his love interest, but that’s because he falls into the “I want my beloved to be happy” trope — which we’ll discuss more in a minute. Brandon almost goes this route too, but circumstances work out in their favor.

Of course, both Dantes and Rochester are Byronic heroes, who end up with their love interests, but only after some deep self-reflection and maybe even bits of atonement.

Likewise, I wouldn’t say Elias is a Byronic hero exactly, but he is a mixture of heroic and villainous character traits, but with a sympathetic bend. It seems the reader is supposed to root for Elias, but his questionable past and some of his actions in the ‘present day’ indicate that he still has to grow a LOT emotionally for his relationship with Chise to be healthy.

2) THE OLDER THE FEMALE CHARACTER IS WHEN SHE FIRST MEETS THE MALE CHARACTER, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT THE PAIRING WILL END UP TOGETHER … OR, AT THE VERY LEAST, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT SHE WILL ENTERTAIN HIS PROPOSALS.

With the exception of Haydee, all of our successful couples had met when the young lady was at least 15+. Chise is 15 when she meets Elias; Jane is 18-20 when she meets Rochester; and Marianne is 17 when she meets Colonel Brandon.

Also of note, Esther finally met Jarndyce when she was about 18; and Bathsheba met Boldwood when she was around 20.

The longer and the younger the man has known the young lady, the less likely it is that she will see him as a love interest.

You’ll also note that if the man is in a position of authority (guardian/teacher) over the young woman, it’s LESS likely that they will end up together. Littlefinger acts as Sansa’s father while she’s undercover in the Vale; Jorah is Dany’s adviser; Turpin is Johanna’s guardian; the Phantom is Christine’s teacher and sort of projected-onto father figure; and Jarndyce is Esther’s guardian.

Again, Dantes/Haydee are the big exception — and Elias/Chise to some degree, but he doesn’t take very long to tell her about his plans to make her his bride.

**3) IF THE FEMALE CHARACTER HAS ANOTHER, MORE AGE-APPROPRIATE LOVE INTEREST, THE LESS LIKELY IT IS THAT THE DISCUSSED PAIRING WILL END UP TOGETHER.**

Looking at the successful couples, none of them have younger love interests who REALLY compete for the woman’s affection over the older man’s. Haydee doesn’t have a younger love interest, and neither does Chise.

Jane does have a false love interest after she runs away from Rochester, but she rejects his offer of marriage as she isn’t in love with him and never could be.

For a period of time, it does seem to the reader that Marianne and Willoughby are going to end up together. However, after Willoughby’s true character is revealed and he marries another woman, the one plot element stopping Brandon and Marianne from being together is removed, allowing the pairing to eventually work out.

Basically, if the woman DOES have a younger love interest, the best way to get him out of the picture is to have HIM run off with someone else, leaving the May/September pairing to get together.

And, looking over the unsuccessful couples, it’s no wonder why they didn’t work out, especially if the younger love interest is more heroic or virtuous than the older man. Turpin, Jorah, the Phantom, Boldwood and even Littlefinger to a degree … all of them lose out to younger, better love interests.

And, Jarndyce, likewise pulls the hero move and releases Esther from their engagement so she can be with Woodcourt, the man she loves.

((And unofficially:

4) OBVIOUSLY, THE MORE AFFECTION THE FEMALE CHARACTER FEELS FOR THE MALE CHARACTER, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT THE PAIRING WILL END UP TOGETHER.

This is pretty obvious, so I won’t go into a lot of detail about it until later.))

###

Basically, if you want to overcome a 15+ year age gap, you need at least 2 of the 3 things in your favor. There’s no successful couple among the 10 pairings discussed who doesn’t have at least two of these three things going for them.

So, with all that in mind, let’s take a look at how Red and Liz stack up against these criteria for a successful May/September pairing:

Raymond “Red” Reddington (alias), Elizabeth Keen (a.k.a. Masha Rostova) from The Blacklist

1. IS RED A HEROIC, OR AT LEAST SYMPATHETIC, CHARACTER?

As discussed previously, Red is very much a modern-day version of a Byronic hero, in the same vein as Dantes or Rochester. He has done some wicked deeds, but he is very much a man who craves goodness, redemption and forgiveness.

And, like Elias, he’s a very complicated character — a mixture of both heroic and villainous elements, and yet we (as the audience) are supposed to root for him. We are terrified of his dark nature, but realize that he desire to be more human and less monstrous.

So, is Red heroic? No, I wouldn’t say so. Granted, this show doesn’t have hardly any characters who would be “lawful good” on the alignment chart. Hell, even Cooper has shown that he’s willing to bend the rules in the name of ‘security’ or ‘the greater good.’ So, no, Red’s not a hero. Nobody on this show is; that’s the world that they live in.

But… is Red sympathetic? Yes. Again, if he’s a Byronic hero, he has as much chance of ending up with Liz as Rochester did with Jane or Dantes did with Haydee. And those pairings worked out. Elias and Chise… also worked out.

Two flawed, broken people who have a tendency to do darker things than they’d like but have a craving for goodness and righteousness … yeah, I’d say they have a good chance to be together.

Now, it’s possible that Red could fall into ‘Phantom’ territory, as the Phantom is somewhat sympathetic, but, like Red, has done some very wicked and vile things, particularly to his love interest.

But, let’s maybe take a look at the other criteria first, and for now say that The Blacklist is 1 / 1.

2. DID LIZ FIRST MEET RED WAS SHE WAS OLDER (15+)?

This is the problem child, right here. Because, technically, Liz FIRST met Red when she was 4 years old.

However, unlike Johanna or Dany or Sansa, she wasn’t around Red constantly from there on out. She met him — as far as we know — once, briefly, under dire circumstances and then had her memory of the incident altered. She didn’t recognize him in the pilot; she had no idea they’d ever met before.

In Episode 2.10, she DOES recall he was at her house The Night of the Fire, but she just says “You were there,” and Red doesn’t deny it. We’re not sure if Liz remembers our Red being there (as he likely would’ve looked very different being 30 years younger and pre-plastic surgery) … or if she remembers “Raymond Reddington” (the real one, her dad) being there.

But, regardless, they only met the once (again, as far as we know). Liz was thereafter raised by Sam and didn’t REALLY meet Red until she was like 30 years old.

So, that’s good. Of all our above pairings, the oldest one of our women meeting her older love interest was 20-ish years old (Bathsheba meeting Boldwood). Liz should have a level of maturity, experience and wisdom that none of our above female characters had.

Now, here’s the kicker: all of Season 5, Liz believed Red was her dad. This likely takes place over 2-3 years, based on Agnes’ age the few times we see her. So, for 2-3 years, Liz has believed that this man was her dad.

Now, on the one hand, this definitely made her feel a sense of obligatory, filial love toward him; but on the other hand, if she’d ever had any kind of non-filial / non-platonic thoughts about him pre-Season 5, all of that now would now seem incredibly creepy and unwelcome in her mind.

Of course, now, she knows differently. Even if she’s going to have to keep on acting like Red is her dad around him.

While it’s definitely weird, I will say that Liz discovered this when she was an adult, after she’d known Red for years. It’s not like he’d been in her life this whole time, as a guardian-type figure. He’s never REALLY been in a position of authority over her. In the pilot, he specifically remarks that they’re going to be a great TEAM. Shortly after, Liz gets mad at him saying that they’re not a team, and she’s not his partner. So, from the outset, the powers that be were trying to implant in our minds the notion that Liz and Red are equals. Whether they really are is another question; but that was, at least, the intent.

So, overall… let’s say 0.5 points for this one, giving us 1.5 / 2 total.

3. DOES LIZ HAVE ANOTHER, YOUNGER LOVE INTEREST?

This clearly would’ve been Tom, except that he’s dead.

Yep, the powers that be went the Willoughby route and paired the ~false love interest~ off with someone or, in this case, something else: his coffin, six feet under.

I should note that in all the above examples (with the exception of Linus/Sabrina) all the older male love interests were in the picture BEFORE the younger male interests were. (With Linus and Sabrina, the two brothers entered Sabrina’s life simultaneously.) We never had an instance where the YOUNGER man was there first, and the older man stepped into her life to become her love interest.

But, what about the possibility of the showrunners giving Liz *another* younger love interest now that Tom’s dead? Well, I mean… I guess they *could*. But comments from the showrunners after Episode 5.08 indicate that Red & Liz are our endgame coupling. I suppose they could have some nice, normal guy enter Liz’s life, she falls in love with him, and they ride off into the sunset with Red’s “I just want my beloved to be happy” blessing, a la The Phantom and Jarndyce.

They could. But really, they kind of already did that in Seasons 1-5. Red specifically tells Tom that he didn’t kill him at the first wedding because of how much Liz loved him. And, after Liz found out “Red” was her father, Red played along like the ‘father of the bride’ and let Liz and Tom pretty much do their own thing (minus the Bag O’ Bones nonsense).

No. I don’t think the powers that be are going to give Liz another long-term love interest. They might have her date some other guy(s) to show us that she’s moving on from Tom. Hell, maybe they’ll have her and Ressler hook-up because we just need more weird Grey’s Anatomy / Eskimo brothers and sisters bullshit on this show.

So… 2.5 / 3. Not bad.

But, let’s look at that last one:

4. WHAT KIND OF AFFECTION DOES LIZ HAVE FOR RED?

Well, clearly, right now (at the end of Season 5) she hates him.

Any “I care about you, deal with that” … any “Where’s my friend?” … any “Raymond, I do love—”… any “I’ll come for you” … that’s all out the window. She hates Red’s guts right now.

And, honestly, I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Under the circumstances, I’d say that’s pretty reasonable. If I found out someone had stolen my dad’s identity and had been playing some kind of game with me… I don’t think I’d want to kill him; but, I definitely wouldn’t want him in my life any more.

Looking back over our above pairings, the only other instance where the young woman completely hates the older man is Johanna and Judge Turpin. And, while I hate to use them as an example, they provide a good contrast for Red & Liz.

Turpin, unlike Red, is a pure villain. He’s a pervert; he abused Johanna’s mother; he basically sentenced her father to death; and his intentions toward Johanna are purely physical and selfish.

Red, on the other hand — while he’s done some dark deeds — has treated Liz like a gentleman should. He does withhold some truths; he does endanger her. But he’s also been willing to give his life for hers several times now; he’s offered to walk away; and he’s helped her in every way he can, including giving her space when she asks him to.

So, Red has an advantage here.

Johanna has also always regarded Turpin as her guardian; not as a love interest. Liz, on the other hand, was introduced to Red as a grown woman.

Advantage Red/Liz.

And, Johanna had a younger love interest, which Liz currently does not.

So, while Red and Liz have 2.5 of the 3 boxes checked, Johanna/Tuprin have none, which shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who’s seen Sweeney Todd.

Anyway, my real point here is that Red & Liz are much better off. Characters’ feelings can change very easily (see… the entirety of The Blacklist up to this point). But, having the show’s plot and themes working in favor of the pairing… that’s a lot harder to change retroactively.

And, honestly, if Liz didn’t hate Red, I think her character would be unlikable. If she were blindly loyal to him the way Chise is to Elias and Haydee is to Dantes — to the point where readers/viewers argue whether they have any free will of their own — we’d hate her for it.

If she were like Christine in The Phantom of the Opera, only taking pity on him for what the world’s hatred has made him become… it would be out-of-character for her.

If she looked on him with filial or platonic gratitude, the way Esther saw Jarndyce, or Dany sees Jorah, or Sansa sees Littlefinger, it would basically mean that Red would forever be in the ‘dad-zone’ or ‘friend-zone.’

No, her hating him is good, because it means she doesn’t NOT see him as a potential love interest. If she loved him as a father figure or as a friend, TPTB would have her run off to end up with someone else while Red went the Jarndyce/Phantom route.

Right now, Liz is taken aback much in the same way that Jane is when she finds out Rochester’s secret. She feels betrayed, hurt and vulnerable. She’s lashing out by distancing herself from him in an effort to protect herself and her feelings, in the way that both Jane try to run away from their love interests. Granted, Liz’s reaction has much more vitriol behind it, but I think it’s going to cool down eventually once the truth comes out and Red does something to make amends.

Yeah, it’d be nice, if like Jane, Liz still had SOME measure of good feeling toward Red. But, I’ll take what I can get. As I said, I think any other reaction like those in the above examples would be out-of-character for her.

Remember: Liz also hated Tom’s guts right after she found out he’d betrayed her, and snapped the dude’s fingers and chained him up on a boat for like 8 months. And then they had a kid together and got married.

If Liz is already plotting Red’s death, I think it’s safe to say we’ll be hearing wedding bells in no time.

So, for now, we’ve got like 2.5 out of the 4 overall checkpoints. But, that last one could change very easily.

Author’s Note: And, as Season 6 showed us, it already has! Liz has admitted her feelings for Red by telling him that she loves him and by constantly working to save his life after she betrayed him.

And, yes, I realize that I said above that it would be bad if Liz ‘dad-zoned’ him, which she seemed to do toward the end of Season 6, by saying that he will always be her and Agnes’ family. I would argue, however, that she only did so because this was her way of forcing Red to be in her life, after he threatened to excommunicate her for betraying him. She basically told him: “You can’t get rid of us because we’re ~family~” and then brought Agnes back into the picture, which almost comes across as emotional blackmail. “You can’t walk away from us now, because I’ve decided to bring Agnes home.” And, we all know that Red would do literally anything for Agnes, just as much as he would for Liz. And where Liz has transgressed, Agnes has not. So, again, emotional blackmail.

Plus, I personally don’t think that Liz seeing Red in this vaguely familial way is a bad thing in this case. Liz has had her walls up against Red, more or less, pretty much since Day 1. She let them down, for sure, when they were on the run together in Season 3, but they went right back up after her name was cleared, she found out she was pregnant, and Red said the fight against the Cabal wasn’t over.

Now, though, she has clearly let him into her and Agnes’ life in a very personal way — meaning that she’s letting down her guard around him. And, as I discussed in my post about why people hate Liz so much, Red has loved Liz far longer and far deeper than she has seemingly ever loved him. So, it’d be great to see her continue to treat him with this modicum of affection that she had for him in Season 3, which has rekindled since she betrayed him in early Season 6. Let’s see Liz put some effort into her ‘relationship’ with Red, rather than just being an inert object that the force of Red’s love acts upon.

As for his weird thing with Katarina in the Season 6 finale… I hate that scene for a variety of reasons. Even still, I won’t pass judgment on what was happening there until I get more context. Was Red just messing with Katarina? Was he acting in a certain way to win her over and gain information from her — as he did with Madeline Pratt in Season 1? From the little we saw, it didn’t appear that he was really interested in kissing her initially; plus, Red is generally an affectionate guy who has no problem lip-kissing his female friends and cheek-kissing his male friends. So… there’s a lot in the air right now, which is why I’m not going to pass judgment on it just yet.

Until the final scene in the series finale (which — who knows — could be in May if Season 7 ends up being the last one), I will continue to believe that Red and Liz are the endgame couple for this show. As I said in the title, I think — given everything I wrote about above — these two love birds have a better shot than most of these other pairings.

I’m just curious to see how it’s all going to come about.

Catching the Miyazaki Classics (BONUS) – From Up On Poppy Hill

“From Up On Poppy Hill” is a 2011 film from Studio Ghibli that Hayao Miyazaki co-wrote and his son, Goro Miyazaki, directed

Japanese filmmaker Hayao Miyazaki, perhaps best known for his work with Studio Ghibli, has gained popularity around the world for his creative and imaginative animated feature films. While they were originally released in Japanese, all of them have been dubbed into English with prominent voice actors and Hollywood stars. Over the past few months, I’ve watched and reviewed the English-dub versions of each of Miyazaki’s 11 films as writer and director.

And now, as I discussed at the end of my CtMC series recap, this will be the first of three bonus posts to review the three films that Miyazaki wrote but didn’t direct. They are: Secrets of the Heart (1995); The Secret World of Arrietty (2010); and From Up On Poppy Hill (2011).

This time, I’ll be discussing From Up On Poppy Hill (2011).

Synopsis: High school student Umi Matsuzaki (voiced by Sarah Bolger) lives comfortably with her family running a boarding home in Yokohama. But, her life starts to change after she meets fellow student Shun Kazama (voiced by Anton Yelchin), who — along with several other male students — is in uproar that their clubhouse might be torn down. Together, they work to rally the students to clean up and ultimately save the clubhouse, all the while grower closer and closer to each other — until a family secret threatens to keep them apart!

Spoiler-free review: Much like The Cat Returns (2002), which I mentioned briefly at the end of the series recap, I can only summarize my thoughts about this movie as: “Enjoyable but weird.” The English voice cast does a good job, although I think there were a few weird choices. The animation is pretty standard, but not in a bad way. It’s well-done, but there aren’t any sequences that really stand out in my mind. The story is well-paced, despite not sounding like an interesting setup. Unlike most of the 11 Miyazaki-directed films, this one doesn’t really have any adventure elements to it, so there’s not a ton of conflict in the movie. Still, the themes are executed well, and the characters all win you over — particularly Umi and Shun. Overall, it’s a cute little story. Weird. But cute. It’s definitely more on the older-kid side (maybe like 9-12 year olds), but no doubt adults will like it as well.

Letter grade: B

Full review and critique: (Warning: here be spoilers!)

If you don’t want to be spoiled, turn back now! Seriously. I’m about to discuss the weird crux of this movie, so if you want to watch it for yourself first, don’t read any further.

So, if you’re reading this now, it means you’ve either already seen the movie or you don’t care about spoilers. Good. Because, holy crap! I cannot believe I just watched a movie where the main conflict between the two leads is that they can’t be together because they might be half-siblings???? What is this movie?!

Obviously, it ties into the whole ‘anti-war/pacifism as a recurring theme’ thing that I wrote about in the CtMC series recap post. And, it looks like it’s not just Hayao Miyazaki’s films, but Studio Ghibli’s entire catalog. Maybe I’ll have to watch all of them to find out. But, the idea that war creates chaos and also leaves children orphaned or fatherless — wondering about who they are and what families they belong to — definitely happens in the real world whenever there’s a violent conflict.

But, I can’t believe that Umi’s dad didn’t tell Shun’s adoptive parents that Shun wasn’t his son. All it would’ve taken was a “Hey, he’s actually Tachibana’s kid.” But, for some reason he neglected to tell Shun’s adoptive parents that because ~drama~. I normally don’t really care about plot holes, but this one is pretty glaring. Did he just hand them the baby and then run out the door? Also, thank goodness Umi’s mom came back from America when she did, or she wouldn’t have been able to explain what really happened.

So, when Shun saw the photo of Umi’s dad at her house, I wondered whether he knew something about him. Then, of course, we find out that he believes Yuichiro is his father. At first, I believed it, and thought this was going to be a story about estranged half-siblings reconnecting, in the vein of One Tree Hill, albeit in a kinda weird way. But, as time went on and neither Umi nor Shun really addressed it, and their feelings for each other kept deepening, I started to realize: “Oh, this isn’t that kind of movie. We’re going to find out that they aren’t related, and then they’re going to end up together.” And, of course, that’s exactly what happens, because this is a family movie after all.

All that being said, it’s not a bad movie. It’s just… weird, as I said. It’ll be forever burned in my brain as “the one where the two leads think they’re related so they can’t be together.” Then again, The Blacklist has strayed into and back out of that territory, so I guess it’s not too bizarre. But, it is weird to see it in something like a Studio Ghibli film.

There are some great things that this movie brings to the table. The themes are well-composed and fluid without really hitting you over the head with them. The idea of old vs. new — tradition vs. modernization — I can get behind that. Why tear something down when all it really needs is people who can take care of it? It’s only in disarray because the previous generations have neglected it, not because it was poorly built or it’s too old.

One more thing I’ll say, which I touched on above, is the voice cast. I thought both Sarah Bolger and Anton Yelchin did a fantastic job. There were a few people who I thought were weird choices, like Ron Howard, who voices a very tall and muscular high school student. I thought Aubrey Plaza was a good choice, but then her voice kinda took me out of the movie every time she spoke. She just didn’t seem to fit quite right. I didn’t even recognize Gillian Anderson’s voice as one of the boarders; the only person I really did recognize was Jamie Lee Curtis. I also thought she was a weird choice, as her voice is so distinct and recognizable, but she did a good job getting into character and toning it down.

So, overall, go watch it if you want. I’d watch it again over The Wind Rises, but not something like Howl’s Moving Castle or Porco Rosso. As I said: “It’s enjoyable but weird.”

And your next bonus CtMC post will be about The Secret World of Arrietty (2010).

Catching the Miyazaki Classics – SERIES RECAP

Japanese filmmaker Hayao Miyazaki, perhaps best known for his work with Studio Ghibli, has gained popularity around the world for his creative and imaginative animated feature films. While they were originally released in Japanese, all of them have been dubbed into English with prominent voice actors and Hollywood stars. Over the past several weeks, I watched and reviewed the English-dub versions of each of Miyazaki’s 11 films as writer and director.

So, in case you missed any or all of the reviews:

Part 1: Porco Rosso (1992)

Part 2: Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (1984)

Part 3: Castle in the Sky (1986)

Part 4: Spirited Away (2001)

Part 5: The Wind Rises (2013)

Part 6: Lupin III: The Castle of Cagliostro (1979)

Part 7: Ponyo (2008)

Part 8: My Neighbor Totoro (1988) and Kiki’s Delivery Service (1989)

Part 9: Princess Mononoke (1997)

Part 10: Howl’s Moving Castle (2004)

And, if you forgot what letter grade I awarded to each of them, I put together this handy little tier chart:

If you read it from left to right, top to bottom, that’s the order I would rank all of Miyazaki’s movies in, with Mononoke being #1 and Cagliostro being #11.

Also, I’m not sure if anyone picked up on it, but in addition to the overall grade, I was judging each movie in at least four categories: plot/story; characters; animation; and voice cast. Below is a chart showing my grade for each of the 11 movies in those categories, their overall grade, and an award of some kind. The award is just something to recognize the movie for — what it accomplished in comparison to its fellow Miyazaki films, what it brought to the table, etc. In this way, even Cagliostro has something it did well and should be recognized for.

Another way to look at the quality of each of these movies is by asking myself the question: “Would I own it?” Answers:

I already own it: Princess Mononoke, Howl’s Moving Castle

I’ll probably buying it: Spirited Away

I don’t know whether I’d buy it myself, but I would DEFINITELY keep it if someone gave it to me: Kiki’s Delivery Service, Porco Rosso

I wouldn’t buy it but I MIGHT keep it if someone gave it to me*: My Neighbor Totoro, Ponyo, The Wind Rises, Nausicaä

I wouldn’t buy it, and I’d probably re-gift it if someone gave it to me*: The Castle of Cagliostro, Castle in the Sky

*= with the exception of keeping it to be a completist

Okay. So even with all that out of the way, we still have a lot of things we need to discuss. First, I want to briefly go over some recurring themes in Miyazaki’s work. I realize I won’t be the first to discuss them, but I just want to give my thoughts.

Then, I’ll touch on what aspects of these Miyazaki-directed films consistently work, and whether there’s anything that doesn’t.

And then, lastly, I was considering writing a faux script for an Honest Trailer for Every Miyazaki Movie, similar to what actual Honest Trailers on YouTube has done for Tim Burton, Christopher Nolan and Wes Anderson. But, I don’t quite feel up to the task, so instead, I’ll write up a plot synopsis for what a Miyazaki-crossover movie would look like. (Think The Avengers, but with the characters from these 11 Miyazaki movies.)

I also had an entire section comparing Miyazaki/Studio Ghibli to their counterparts in the West (mostly Disney), but then I wrote ~1,500 words about it, so that will be its own post, coming soon!

RECURRING THEMES

The Environment: This is perhaps the most common theme among Miyazaki’s works. It’s in almost every one of his films to some degree, ranging from ‘integral to the plot’ in Mononoke and Totoro to ‘discussed in passing’ in Ponyo and Spirited Away. As I said in the Totoro review, I think this subject is best tackled in that film, because it not only conveyed that kids should be excited about interacting with nature, but how and why to do it in a respectful way. And, as I talked about with Mononoke, it could’ve easily slid into Ferngully territory of ‘humans bad, nature good’ but it was much more nuanced and showed that humans can and should live alongside nature peacefully. It appears that Miyazaki is trying to convey that human development isn’t an absolute evil, but it can be damaging when it doesn’t take environmental impacts into consideration. At least, that’s what I got out of it.

Anti-war & pacifism: It’s unsurprising that this is another common theme given that Miyazaki grew up in post-WWII Japan. It makes sense why violence is often portrayed as an evil, or at the very least, a necessary evil, in his films, when it is portrayed at all. Overall, his filmography tends to be more family friendly and whimsical, but when it does stray into darker territory — like in Nausicaa, Castle in the Sky and Mononoke — the films’ protagonists make it very clear that there is alternative to conflict and that violence has too high of a cost. Additionally, the incredible cost of real-life wars is conveyed in a brief but powerful way in Porco Rosso and The Wind Rises, with the former being about a fictional WWI pilot and the latter being about a real-life WWII aerospace engineer. Both movies contain at least one scene that tells the audience exactly what the wars have cost these characters personally, and — in The Wind Rises — what it has cost an entire nation. For myself, I’m totally on board with Miyazaki’s overall message here. I feel like there are too many movies among our ranks these days that glorify violence, and it’s a good change of pace when a family movie can sit down and explain to children (and adults) why violence is bad, but in a very mature way.

Flying: While this isn’t really a ‘theme’ per se, it is certainly a recurring motif and image among Miyazaki’s works. Almost all of these films have some kind of flying mechanism involved. In fact, I think the only ones that don’t are Mononoke and Ponyo. Overall, in addition to being a quick means of transportation, flying tends to be associated with freedom and capability. Kiki loses her flying powers, and no longer feels like a witch and can no longer run her delivery service. Porco’s plane gets shot down, and he’s lost his livelihood and only source of pride. When the curse is broken on Howl and Calcifer, the entire crew can fly away in their new winged castle. Jiro feels a little bit inadequate when he’s unable to fly because of his eyesight, so he does the next best thing and designs planes; all the while, though, his dreams are primarily about flying. Plus, visually, seeing someone flying around gives the audience the overwhelming sense of adventure and excitement, like in Totoro or Nausicaa. So, it’s clear to see why so many of Miyazaki’s movies incorporate this image/motif.

Technology: Unlike the environment or war, Miyazaki’s stance on technology isn’t super clear, in my opinion. On the one hand, you have things like the God Warriors in Nausicaa, the dirigible in Kiki’s, and Laputa and its various components in Castle in the Sky — all of which are portrayed as being destructive, or at least, being dangerous under certain circumstances. I guess if there is a stance, it’s that technology can be destructive and dangerous when either 1) it’s in the hands of wrong-doers and/or 2) it’s in the hands of someone unprepared for the responsibilities of handling it. The pilots of the dirigible should’ve been aware of the possibility of high winds and taken safety measures to ensure Tombo and others weren’t endangered by the dirigible taking off unexpectedly. Laputa is seen as a technological marvel, but both the robots and Laputa itself are destructive when Muska is in control. The God Warriors were never going to be used for good. And, hell, even in Cagliostro, the Count uses a high-tech printing press to run his huge counterfeiting scheme. But, that doesn’t mean technology can NEVER be used for good. Jiro keeps reworking his designs until he makes a successful plane (although we see the overall cost of that at the end of the movie); Howl’s castle is also seen as a wonder (although I guess it’s powered by magic, not necessarily technology); and the radios and other equipment allow Sosuke’s family members to communicate with each other across vast distances. And, while Iron Town’s weapons have been used to cause great harm, we do see that making them has allowed the residents to live a productive and meaningful life. (And, as stated above, the problem was that their settlement wasn’t taking too much of a toll on the environment.)

Feminism & chivalry: I could probably write an entire article about this, and I might have to at a later date. To be determined.

But the TL;DR of it all is that Miyazaki makes sure that, if his movie has a female protagonist, she’s given a good amount of agency, she’s active in the story (rather than being passive), and she has her own story on however small or large of scale that might be. Not all of Miyazaki’s female protagonists have to be ‘the Chosen One,’ and even in Nausicaa’s case, she was a great character without the whole ‘fulfilling prophecy’ nonsense. They don’t all have to be these big action heroes or ‘strong, independent princesses.’ They can go on little adventures, whatever they might be — whether it’s learning to start a business or befriending the neighboring spirits. And, they can have grand adventures, too — like bridging the gap between land and sea, surviving in a hostile realm, breaking a curse, or preventing a technological marvel from falling into the wrong hands. They have such a great range in personalities, goals, abilities, and responses to whatever they’re facing; and I greatly appreciate that diversity among Miyazaki’s female lead protagonists. (And that’s not even touching on any of the female side characters or antagonists.)

As for his male lead protagonists — which is only Wolf, Porco, Ashitaka and Jiro — all of them have chivalry/compassion as a defining trait. As discussed before, Miyazaki’s Cagliostro entry in the Lupin III franchise was not well-received because it portrayed Wolf as being too kind and chivalrous, which was apparently out-of-character for the womanizer. And, hell, Porco’s entire arc is about him regaining his honor, which culminates in an honor fight to defend a woman he greatly admires in a courtly-love kind of way.

Again, I have no problem with this. I’m all for media that has a diverse set of female leads setting off on adventures as varied and unique as they are, and a cast of male protagonists who recognize the humanity of all those around them and are willing to lend a helping hand to anyone in need.

(Note: I consider San a kind of female co-lead character, as we’re introduced to Ashitaka first and spend more time with him; and I see Pazu, Howl and Sosuke as male co-leads for similar reasons.)

WHAT WORKS & WHAT DOESN’T

Having seen all of the films Miyazaki has directed, I can say definitively that he is a fantastic director. I appreciate how all of his movies are family friendly, to some degree, while each also has a kind of target demographic. For instance, Ponyo is meant for very young children (4-7yo); Spirited Away is more directed at older kids (8-12); and Princess Mononoke is more for tweens, teens and adults. But, that doesn’t mean that a teenager couldn’t enjoy Kiki’s Delivery Service or that an adult couldn’t enjoy My Neighbor Totoro. It just depends on what appeals to you.

And, as we discussed above, Miyazaki is very good at taking very complex themes and messages, and putting them to film in a way that makes them accessible for people of all ages. These are movies that, while they can be lighthearted, whimsical and a bit cheesy, should never be dismissed because they’re “for kids.” Porco Rosso, which is a very breezy adventure movie that’s seemingly about nothing, has a clear arc for the main character, touches on a deeper theme, and pulls elements from other genres (like romance and noir) to help give it a well-rounded and memorable story.

Miyazaki wants to appeal to a very broad audience, but he realizes that doesn’t mean he has to dumb down his movies to do so. He realizes that a movie that’s just bright colors and a paper-thin plot is only going to do so much. To really capture people’s hearts and imaginations, he wants to give them an array of characters who will stick with them long after they’ve left the theater or turned off the television. That’s why five of his movies are on the IMDB Top 250 list, which is a pretty major accomplishment. (They are, in descending order: Spirited Away at #27; Princess Mononoke at #65; Howl’s Moving Castle at #127; My Neighbor Totoro at #129; and Nausicaa at #214. And I feel like Castle in the Sky was on the list until very recently — something must’ve knocked it off.) I don’t know how many directors have half their filmography on this list, but I’m sure it’s not many. As of Feb. 2016, Miyazaki was #7 on the list of Directors with the Most Films on the IMDb Top 250 List, behind the likes of Alfred Hitchcock (#1), Christopher Nolan (#2), and Steven Spielberg (#3). For a director whose only films are animation, I feel like that’s astounding. How many directors in the world of hand-drawn animation can you name? Miyazaki is pretty much the only one I can think of. While I love the old-school animated Disney movies, I don’t know any of their directors. So, I personally think it’s an amazing accomplishment that Miyazaki’s name is alongside the likes of Stanley Kubrick and Akira Kurosawa when it comes to high-quality directors. But, then again, if you’ve seen Miyazaki’s films, it isn’t surprising.

If it were up to me, I would rank Miyazaki above the likes of Spielberg and Kubrick, because Miyazaki has never made a bad film, in my opinion — other than, arguably, The Castle of Cagliostro. Kubrick’s films are like a genre unto themselves, and they’re not really for everyone. Spielberg has done some great work, but he does so many movies that it’s no surprise he has a few misses among all his hits. Miyazaki, by comparison, seems more deliberate. He takes his time with his projects, because — in the case of all these films — he directed AND wrote them. And, he wrote and/or produced other Studio Ghibli films that aren’t on this list.

So, at the risk of getting off track, is there anything else I can say about Miyazaki’s films that are consistently good? Looking at my grades for all 11 films, it looks like the strongest category is the characters, and I think that’s true. Overall, while Miyazaki’s plots can sometimes be convoluted or have pacing problems, his characters are very lively and memorable. They have clear personalities, goals, fears and actions/reactions.

One more thing I want to highlight among Miyazaki’s filmography is his ongoing collaboration with composer Joe Hisaishi, who was inadvertently the one who started this whole journey. (Read my Porco Rosso review for more info on that.) While Miyazaki’s writing, imagination and style are the ‘brains’ of his movies, I think Hisaishi’s music is the ‘heart.’ Every piece of music is simply perfect and helps bring the world to life, as I said in my Ponyo and Princess Mononoke reviews on the podcast. (Seriously, if you’ve never listened to the Budokan recording celebrating 25 years of Studio Ghibli, you need to. It’s the perfect music to put on in the background while you’re working or doing chores. In fact, I’m listening to it as I’m typing this.)

Okay, okay. So… now we need to talk about what aspects of Miyazaki’s filmography could be… better. There aren’t many, so this will be quick.

Really, my issues are minor, compared to everything that these movies bring to the table, but it boils down to: I think Studio Ghibli’s animation and designs can sometimes be a little repetitive; and two, I think the English-language voice casts can be a little weak on occasion. Granted, the second one is more on the American distributing companies (mostly Disney) than it is Studio Ghibli, but it’s something worth discussing.

As you’ll see on my grading chart above, pretty much all the voice casts were excellent or above-average, with the exception of Castle in the Sky (which I talked about in detail in that review post). But, in a few instances, there is one voice actor who weakens an otherwise strong cast, with Shia LaBeouf in Nausicaa and Billy Bob Thornton in Princess Mononoke being the foremost examples. Again, not something that Studio Ghibli can really control — unless it undertakes all the English-language dubbing itself, which probably won’t happen.

But, as for the animation, this was something that came up during my Spirited Away review. I often feel like Studio Ghibli’s animation in Miyazaki’s movies is a little too one-note. It all looks a little too similar. You could honestly take a background from Kiki’s Delivery Service and put it next to a background from The Wind Rises — and other than maybe the color palette — I don’t know whether I’d be able to tell you which was which. While the creature designs are all very unique, the humans all look very similar. Again, put an isolated background character from My Neighbor Totoro next to an isolated background character from Ponyo, and I don’t know whether I’d be able to say which was which. Compared to other animation studios, particularly Disney, I feel like each movie has a very distinct art sytle. Sure, there are probably some aspects that are the same from movie to movie — the big eyes, the way hair is drawn, etc. — but I bet I’d be able to identify a background character from The Hunchback of Notre Dame versus one from The Princess & The Frog.

This was something that made Spirited Away so striking when I rewatched it for the series. Chihiro/Sen looks so different than Mei and Satsuki do in My Neighbor Totoro or Sophie does in Howl’s Moving Castle.

Again, I’m not saying that Studio Ghibli’s animation hasn’t evolved, because if you look at Castle in the Sky and The Wind Rises side-by-side, it absolutely has. The animation integrates more CGI and different ‘camera’ techniques and cinematography; the linework has become more refined; and the colors pop a lot more and don’t look quite so dull. (Plus, the art style for some of their non-Miyazaki-directed films looks very different, like with The Tale of Princess Kaguya.) But, the basic style of these movies is the same. Sheeta and Pazu look more like Jiro and Nahoko than you’d expect, considering the movies came out 27 years apart and are set in completely different time periods/locations.

In any case, this is really a minor point; because Miyazaki’s filmography really is amazing, and there’s not much to critique when you look at all 11 movies like this.

And now, we finally get to the section of the post that I know you’ve all been waiting for:

THE MIYAZAKI CROSSOVER EVENT!

BASIC PLOT OUTLINE:

After scavenging the wreckage of Laputa — the castle in the sky — a man called Mr. Never (Kesshite-san), a protege of Muska and another lost descendant of Laputa, harnesses its powerful energy to rip holes in space-time. His goal is to take over not only his own world, but all of them!

All across the various universes, our protagonists see a strange hole form in their skies, giving it a putrid color and foul smell. Mr. Never uses his power to tell the citizens of all the various worlds that he intends to enslave them using the powerful technology of Laputa. Sheeta and Pazu, on their own world, see their own sky darken with the same color, and know they have to intervene.

In their world, Howl, Calcifer and Sophie find a cast a very powerful spell that will allow them to travel through all the various worlds until they are able to confront Mr. Never. Unbeknownst to them, however, is the fact that Mr. Never’s world is the farthest from their own, and they must travel through all the subsequent worlds to reach his.

They first travel through Princess Mononoke‘s universe, where San and the wolves and Ashitaka stumble upon them simultaneously. They agree to join, and the group travels to the next world, and the next, until all our protagonists — even if they don’t join in the fight themselves — contribute something to the cause. Wolf gives the group explosives; Ponyo & co., some magical McGuffin; Totoro & co., some magic seeds; etc. Chihiro asks that she and Haku join the fight, and Kiki, Porco and Nausicaa all offer to help fly people around on their broom, plane and glider, respectively. And, considering that Mr. Never has put together an army of flying robots, these tools will come in handy.

In the end, of course, the group defeats Mr. Never with some help from the Pirate Gang & Pazu and Sheeta, who now realize that the legacy of Laputa might be a continual problem for them, but they are willing to take on that responsibility. It also gives San and Ashitaka a chance to reconnect since the events of Princess Mononoke, along with Chihiro and Haku, who haven’t seen each other since Spirited Away.

The film concludes with Howl teaching Sophie (who has discovered she’s a witch over the course of the movie ((which is something that was in the Howl’s Moving Castle novel that wasn’t really addressed in the movie)), and she sends everyone back to their respective realms. Everyone sees their own skies returning to normal (including those who contributed but didn’t join the fight), and Sheeta and Pazu set off to destroy any other remnants of Laputa to ensure this never happens again.

THE END OF ‘CATCHING THE MIYAZAKI CLASSICS’ SERIES… OR IS IT?

So, I mentioned above that Studio Ghibli’s work can be really weird for us Western audiences. (EDIT: I actually didn’t. This was in the section about Studio Ghibli vs. Disney that got cut out to become its own post. Whoops!) On top of all Miyazaki’s 11 films as writer/director, I also had another Studio Ghibli film in mind — The Cat Returns (2002). I watched it for the first time last week, and had such a blast that I decided I couldn’t end the Miyazaki series here. Even though Miyazaki was only peripherally involved with The Cat Returns, it reminded me that there are three other Studio Ghibli films that Miyazaki wrote but didn’t direct. They are: Secrets of the Heart (1995) — which is a sort of sequel to The Cat Returns even though it came out first; The Secret World of Arrietty (2010) and From Up On Poppy Hill (2011).

So, I’ve decided to do three bonus posts for this Miyzaki series! Hooray!

While I’ll be continuing my regular (non-Miyazaki) ‘Catching the Classics’ segments on the podcast episodes, I will post my reviews of these three Miyazaki-written films on the website. I can’t guarantee they’ll be posted in any regular fashion, as life sometimes gets in the way. I can tell you, though, that From Up On Poppy Hill will be the first to be reviewed of the three, because I already checked it out from the library.

So, stay tuned!

As you can see, I’ve had such a blast diving into Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli’s work that I’m eager to continue it, and I hope you all are as excited to keep flying the friendly Miyazaki skies as I am!

Show Time: “30 Rock” and the Importance of Platonic Friendships

I will be the first to admit that I enjoy watching my favorite shows and movie franchises partly because I want to see certain characters get together romantically. One of the things that keeps me excited to watch my programs is for those little moments between these characters – holding hands, meaningful glances, words of affection and care. While I know it doesn’t drive everybody to watch any or all of their favorite shows or movie franchises, I know it’s the driving force behind much of it on the internet, particularly certain social media platforms.

I know that all of this harkens back to age-old storytelling tropes: love triangles, unrequited love, etc., all of which have been around since fucking mythology. And it’s not changing any time soon. And, that’s fine.

But I also think it’s important that, in the midst of all these ‘shipping’ wars, we don’t lose sight of what often holds – or at least what SHOULD hold – movie franchises and TV shows together: friendships and positive (or sometimes negative) platonic interactions between characters.

I know there are a lot of shows that do this, and do it well. No doubt.

But, I want to draw your attention to 30 Rock, one of my all-time favorite shows.

There are a lot of interesting and great and completely platonic relationships between the male and female characters on the show: Liz and Pete. Liz and Frank. Liz and Kenneth. You will notice I’m not including Jenna much on this list because, aside from Pete, she has sex with most of her other male coworkers at one point or other in the show, including Jack, Kenneth and Frank. And, while she doesn’t develop any long-term romantic relationships with any of them and is able to have crucial friendships with all of them (especially Kenneth), I wanted all my examples to be completely platonic.

But, if you will indulge me, let’s take a deeper dive into the three male-female friendships that were the heart of this show:

(I’m going to go backwards in terms of screen time and importance)

1. TRACY AND JENNA

This is a dynamic that ultimately works, even though it really shouldn’t on a practical level. Both of these characters are complete narcissists – selfish, self-absorbed, and unintelligent to a degree. Tracy is a buffoon, and Jenna is a diva.

But the biggest drawback to their dynamic – their egos – is also their starting point and the reason it kinda works, for the most part.

Tracy and Jenna bond over their shared experiences of the pressures of stardom and fame. They bond over their shared dealings with Liz, Jack, and Pete. And, despite Jenna being kind of a sex freak, she and Tracy never get together, and to my recollection, neither ever makes the moves on the other.

They collaborate on various projects – Jenna’s song that gets parodied by Weird Al; Tracy’s Broadway performance for his EGOT; Jenna trying to get back with her ex-boyfriend Paul after her ‘sexual walkabout’ fails; and when they help Liz “problem-solve” her Deal Breakers talk show with Jack, among others.

Yet, they fight a lot too, giving the show plenty of drama and conflict to overcome in any given episode; but this also gives the show a sense of realism among its friendship dynamics.

Jenna is upset at Tracy for intruding on her show, and she never really gets over it. Tracy is mad at Jenna for various things – but later on in the series, it’s because Jenna starts gaining fame and notoriety after she becomes a judge on America’s Kidz Got Singing.

(You will see that all these friendships have their high and low points: they get along; they support each other; but they also fight, and when they do, they know each other’s weak points to attack. Because that’s what friends do in real life: sometimes they disagree, and when they do it’s ugly. But when they’re going strong, it’s like the best thing ever.)

Still, after being on television together almost every week for seven years, these two have become understandably close. It’s to the point where (SPOILERS), in the finale, they share a tearful hug, and Jenna says, genuinely, that she’s going to miss working with him. He tells her that he’s going out to get cigarettes, and he’ll be back in 15 minutes. (This is a reference to earlier in the episode, where he said he’s in denial about the show ending, and admits that he doesn’t know how to or want to say goodbye to his castmates and friends.)

This dynamic, while childish and frustrating at times, flourishes because, while these are two people who oftentimes can’t stand each other, Tracy and Jenna ultimately understand what the other is going through better than anyone else on the show.

2. TRACY AND LIZ

This was sort of the kick-off for the whole series. Tracy Jordan is asked to come on The Girlie Show, and essentially save it. Over the course of the series, Tracy proved to Liz that while he was a good person and cared deeply about his family and friends, he was extremely difficult to work with. He rarely, if ever, took orders. He was selfish, had a huge ego, and serious issues to work through in his personal and professional life.

And while Liz supported Tracy through his ordeals more than he supported her, whenever he did offer advice, words of encouragement or assistance, it was always genuine, heartfelt, and second nature for him to do so.

For her part, while Tracy mostly made her professional and sometimes personal life absolute hell, he (and Jenna) ultimately prepared her for anything. (SPOILERS: In the series’ penultimate episode, she adopts two kids exactly like her two ‘work kids.’)

And even though Tracy has an ego, his star power saved her show.

Later in the series, Tracy finds out just how hard Liz Lemon has to work to get him to do his job everyday. And while he doesn’t show his appreciation outwardly, it’s clear he’s grown to respect her even more.

In one episode, Tracy’s wife demands that he have an affair (to save his image), and he “tries” to “seduce” Liz. It is unsuccessful, for many reasons, but in the conversation that follows, we really start to see why this dynamic works so well, even when they don’t work well together.

Liz admits that she’s jealous of Tracy for having a well-put-together personal life: he has a wife he’s totally devoted to, and kids who see him as their hero. And, even still, as the series progresses so does Tracy’s career (to a degree). Yet he stays on their show.

Even though he has no qualm about making Liz’s day-to-day life hellish, when the chips are down, he does listen to her, follows her advice and obeys her directions.

Each of them has a great respect for the other; it’s just that Tracy is so childish and Liz is so bossy that neither of them expresses or demonstrates it all that often, except in very rare but poignant moments.

3. JACK AND LIZ

Unlike the other two on this list, this one arguably could have been a romantic pairing. Throughout the series, there are several “shippy” moments between these two, starting in the first season, where – after Jack asks her to be his ‘date’ to a black-tie event – she thinks Jack is going to make a move on her. In reality, though, he just wanted back the necklace that he’d lent her, and then he makes it VERY clear that he never intended that, insulting her in the process.

Jack’s mother Colleen thinks that Liz would be a perfect match for him, romantically, because she has “strength of character.” There’s the scene where Jack pretends that Liz is his lover, and they act out a soap-opera-esque scene to trick Kathy Geiss in Season 3. Liz has a dream where she’s giving birth to Jack’s baby (weirdly, of course, it’s Meat Cat, a parody of the animated Cheeto’s Mascot) in Season 4. Jack pretends to be in love with Liz in Season 4, but only so her guy-pal Danny will stop paying attention to Liz and start hanging out more with him. They get married (by accident) in Season 5. Avery gets jealous of Jack and Liz’s “special” relationship, after he tells Liz about his and Avery’s possible names for their kid, and listens to her “advice.” There’s the “kiss” between them in Season 6. They share a bed (but nothing else happens) in Season 7, where Liz even asks out loud why nothing ever DID happen between them. And (SPOILERS) one of the last moments in the finale is them saying that they love each other, although Jack makes it very clear that it’s in the platonic sense.

But, these moments all do a great job of subverting this “will they, won’t they” trope. Hell, even Jeffrey Weinerslav (the HR/hiring guy) says whenever they were “married” that they’ve always given off that vibe, and “It’s been interesting to watch your courtship.”

I think the ultimate reason why is: that’s not who they are. That’s not who they want to be to each other. Jack isn’t attracted to Liz like that, and Liz was always Jack’s subordinate who disagreed with him on several things – politics, life choices, gender roles/expectations, age gap, etc.

But, that didn’t mean that their relationship wasn’t important.

After all, Liz was Jack’s emergency contact as early as Season 1. He oftentimes trusted and relied on her when he wouldn’t trust or rely on anyone else. Despite proclaiming that he had all these powerful, wealthy, and famous friends throughout the series, ultimately, in Season 7, we find out that Liz is the only true friend that Jack really has.

Despite being boss/employee and mentor/mentee, Jack isn’t afraid to let Liz fail. He’s comfortable going out of his way to help her in a way he wouldn’t with many of his other employees (probably because she’s his mentee/friend, which, fair enough.)

In the episode “Problem Solvers,” when Liz pushes Jack away in an effort to protect herself and explore her professional options, Jack is legitimately offended, and acts likewise with her. He even has a revelation that he “wants to do business” with Liz, rather than anyone else – wanting to change and improve her life, instead of, say, Padma Lakshmi’s. He puts his personal interests over the bottom line, and – as ‘Future Jack’ tells him in a hallucination – that’s ultimately how he becomes happy in life. He used to be a shark, and Liz Lemon “un-shark-ulated” him. But, caring about her (and others) is what makes him a better and happier person, as ‘Future Jack’ demonstrates.

And, as he tells Avery, she’s the perfect mentee because she has the Drive, Intelligence, Chaos and Humility (or DICH) in her life to require and accept his mentorship.

And, for her part, Liz is comfortable with Jack in a way she isn’t with most people. She tells him everything – her weird foot problems, her relationship troubles, her very awkward and embarrassing secrets – to the point where Jack is “in her head,” and she can predict how he would react and what kind of advice he would give even in hypothetical situations. She goes out of her way to make Jack feel like a part of her family, and a part of her life, as she invites him to go with her to class reunions and meeting up with her family.

We see over and over that Liz is willing to demean and embarrass herself for Jack’s benefit – taking off her shirt and dancing around as a distraction when he embarrasses himself in front of his colleagues… pretending to be pregnant to keep suspicion off Jack’s wife Avery, who really IS pregnant… calling in bomb threats so his high school crush will stay in town an extra day. And, these are just a handful of examples.

For someone that Jack looks down on for being a woman, a writer or ‘creative type’, a less-than-model-attractive person, and a relatively unambitious un-shark-like person… Liz comes through for Jack more often than most people do. And, Jack looks out for her, too. He even loses a deal against himself in Season 6, purposely making a mistake in negotiations over Liz’s contract, because he wants to “take care of her.”

This relationship is the heart of the show, as is clear from both the pilot and the finale. Jack walks in and seemingly ruins Liz’s life. He fires her friend Pete; he forces her to hire Tracy; and he expects much more of her than she believes is right. But, over time they become more than employer/employee… they become the best of friends, to the point where their friendship is the most meaningful one in either of their lives.

In the penultimate episode, “Hogcock!”, Jack and Liz – both in professional and personal spirals – argue. Liz asks Jack for help finding a new job; Jack says he really can’t, and he won’t, because he’s realized that work will never make either of them really happy. Liz questions what their entire relationship has been about for the last seven years, saying, “I guess you and I were just a boss and his employee.” And Jack agrees.

This argument sends both of them further down their spirals, as Jack tries to reconcile, as he doesn’t really have anything else he can count on in his life. And, Liz acts in her typical Lemon-esque behavior and refuses.

In the finale (SPOILERS), Jack’s faux-suicidal behavior forces Liz to overcome her trademark stubbornness and grudge-holding to accept and admit that Jack is someone special whose friendship she doesn’t want to lose, regardless of what happens to them in life.

Again, this is all stuff that is typical of romantic couples on TV. But, over and over again, 30 Rock subverts these tropes, leading to one of the most poignant and, dare I say, realistic relationships on the show.

This is one of the reasons I really admire this show: the fact that it had a man and a woman, against all odds, remaining platonic friends, regardless of all the chaos and changes in their lives.

On TV, it has become commonplace for even workplace acquaintances to hook-up, to the point where everyone is basically ‘Eskimo brothers’ and ‘sisters’ with each other. (See Grey’s Anatomy as an example.)

And, while yes, this happens on 30 Rock to some extent, the three main male-female friendships remain ever-sacred in that regard. Jenna sleeps around with many of her male coworkers, but she never makes the moves on Tracy (to my recollection). Jack and Liz are continually implied (by both the audience and in-show characters) to be something more than what they are, but they never become a ‘couple’ in that sense.

And, that’s fine.

It’s perfectly normal, and, dare I say, healthy for people to work together, share office space, daily stress, yearly challenges, and be a major part of each other’s professional and sometimes personal lives without them ever hooking up, or even considering it.

The fact that Liz and Jack remain platonic throughout seven seasons, and admit, meaningfully, that they love each other in the finale is a huge thing.

I think it promotes a healthy dynamic among straight men and women: it is perfectly normal, healthy, and even ideal for you to have strong friendships with people of the opposite sex.

(For LGBTQ+ folks, this would be people of any sex/gender you’re attracted to. It is possible and healthy for us all to have strong friendships with people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.)

IN CONCLUSION

In a culture of ‘shipping’ and possible ‘over-sexualization’ of things in our media, it’s become commonplace for us to see a young, handsome, straight guy and want him to end up with the young, beautiful, straight gal, especially if they’re our lead protagonists. And, there’s nothing wrong with that.

But, I wish more shows would imitate 30 Rock, in that it revolved around a group of friends, who rarely if ever, consider each other in a romantic or sexual way. Yes, they might break that rule on occasion; yes, they might make jokes about it; but ultimately, their friendships are the driving force of the show (both for the audience and in-universe). Friendships between people of different races, personalities, ambitions, socioeconomic backgrounds, upbringings, professions; friendships between employers and employees; friendships between men and women.

People can watch their modern-day soap operas disguised as superhero shows or medical procedurals or crime dramas.

That’s totally fine. I watch them too, and I enjoy it.

But, I more so enjoy and appreciate those shows that can stand on their own, without relying on “will they, won’t they” dynamics, love triangles, and unrequited love. Shows about friendships and platonic love.

Shows like 30 Rock.

Catching the Miyazaki Classics (Part 10) – Howl’s Moving Castle

Howl’s Moving Castle is the ninth film by Miyazaki as writer/director

Japanese filmmaker Hayao Miyazaki, perhaps best known for his work with Studio Ghibli, has gained popularity around the world for his creative and imaginative animated feature films. While they were originally released in Japanese, all of them have been dubbed into English with prominent voice actors and Hollywood stars. For the next several weeks, I’ll be reviewing the English-dub versions of each of Miyazaki’s 11 films as writer and director.

Last week, I tackled Princess Mononoke (1997).

This week is our last one of the series: Howl’s Moving Castle (2004).

Synopsis: One day, Sophie (voiced by Emily Mortimer) has a chance meeting with the wizard Howl (voiced by Christian Bale). Even though their meeting is brief and Sophie has no prospect of seeing him again, Howl’s rival, the Witch of the Waste (voiced by Lauren Bacall), curses Sophie by transforming her into an old woman as a way of taking revenge on Howl. Old Sophie (voiced by Jean Simmons) leaves her family to find a way to break the curse, and ends up running into Howl’s moving castle!

Spoiler-free review: Even though I’ve now seen all of Miyazaki’s movies at least once, this one still remains my favorite, which is why I waited to watch it last for the series. I wanted to see if my feelings toward it would change. They didn’t, but other people’s feelings about it being lackluster did come into perspective. (I’ll talk about that more below.) While the story suffers from things not being explained and the animation is a bit so-so sometimes, but I still think the movie’s best quality is the overall charm of the characters and the absolutely perfect voice cast. Unlike most of Miyazaki’s movies, this is one that I have watched with the Japanese audio; and when I did, I missed the English voice cast terribly. There’s something about their performances that really brings their characters and this entire world to life. Overall, I think it’s one you should watch, but I understand why people might not like it as much as Miyazaki’s other films.

Letter grade: B

Full review and critique: (Warning: here be spoilers!)

As I said, this movie still remains my favorite among Miyazaki’s filmography, but I now understand now why people don’t like this movie as much as some of his other films. As I said on the podcast episode, this had to follow a great back-to-back outing by Miyazaki — Princess Mononoke in 1997 and then Spirited Away in 2001. And, on the heels of its very successful predecessors, this movie seems lackluster, by comparison. The animation is good, but doesn’t have the overall consistency or style that Spirited Away does. The world and creatures aren’t as imaginative; the characters aren’t as complex; and the writing isn’t nearly as tight.

Even so, by no means is it a bad movie when you look at it on its own. It doesn’t take long for the plot to really kick in, and once it does, I think you’re immediately won over by all the characters. Sophie is quiet and unassuming initially, but once she’s cursed, she takes on a lot more vocal personality, thanks in large part to Simmons’ amazing performance.

Really, there’s not a single weak link in the cast, but Bacall, Bale and Simmons are the standouts for me. Rounding out the cast is Josh Hutcherson, who plays Howl’s apprentice Markl (who’s like 10 years old). Unlike some of the child voice-actors in other Miyazaki films, neither Hutcherson nor his character is annoying at all. He gets just the right amount of screentime, but even then, I feel like if they spent 10 more minutes with him, it wouldn’t be grating or anything. Surprisingly, Billy Crystal, who plays the fire demon Calcifer, doesn’t get on my nerves either. I’m not a huge fan of Crystal’s voice acting, as I think his performance in Monsters, Inc. is a bit much sometimes; but here, I think his voice adds a little flavor to his character (probably because he’s confined to a set script and can’t riff or improv like he did on Monsters, Inc.) When I watch the movie with the Japanese voice cast, his counterpart does a great job, but there’s definitely something missing that Crystal just seems to add. And, I forgot to mention that Mortimer also does a fantastic job, despite not being in the movie very much until the third act and having to share a character with Simmons; and Blythe Danner also shines in her brief appearance as Madame Sulliman, Howl’s former master.

Another stand-out for me, which I didn’t mention in the podcast, is the music. Joe frickin’ Hisaishi brings it once again with this movie’s score, and the various musical themes are now burned into my brain to the point where just hearing them makes me want to watch this movie.

If I have one more criticism of the film that I didn’t describe above, it’s the pacing. Maybe it’s because I’ve seen it so many times, but the film seems to lose something after the sequence where Howl and Old Sophie confront Madame Sulliman and Sophie flies away with the Witch of the Waste and Heen. I think it might be because, up to this point, the movie has been very focused on Sophie and her personal journey. She gets cursed; she stumbles upon the castle; she figures out her role there; she and Howl come to a kind of understanding; and she goes to talk to Madame Sulliman for him.

After this point, though, the film tries to pack a lot into the final act, including an entire war. Yes, the war has been set up a lot in the previous two-thirds, but I think the movie tries to do too much in the little time it has remaining at this point. We have to build up more of a romance between Sophie and Howl, so he gives her the garden. We have to explain how Sulliman found Howl & co., so we get a scene with Sophie reuniting with her mom. We have to complete Howl’s arc, so he spends time protecting the hatter’s shop. We have to see that Sophie has fallen in love with Howl, so she has to uncouple the castle from the shop… but then she also wants Calcifer to take the castle back to Howl??? (That decision always confused me. You’re just putting everyone in harm’s way again, Sophie!) And despite getting several hints earlier in the film, we have to see just how Howl and Calcifer were cursed, so Sophie has to have the flashback / maybe-time travel scene. etc. It’s just a lot to get through.

We spent like 10 minutes on Sophie cleaning the castle during the second act, but then we have to cram all this into the movie in like 45 minutes or so. It’s too much. Even when I was rewatching after calling in for the podcast episode, but before I wrote this post, I stopped right before Howl and Sophie confront Madame Sulliman. Granted, I was also distracted quite a bit, but I think it speaks to the weird pacing this movie has. The first two-thirds are an absolute breeze — right up there with Porco Rosso. But the final third is a lot. Maybe someone who hasn’t seen it before or who’s only seen it once would feel differently, but I’ve probably seen this movie a dozen times now, and this is a major weak spot for me.

As I said, Howl’s Moving Castle is a movie that’s totally in my wheelhouse, because it has a great mix of action/adventure, romance and fantasy elements. And, unlike many romance subplots in Miyazaki films, this one is between two adults, so it’s more compelling than the ones between kids or tweens.

So, overall, while the animation isn’t as great as Spirited Away or Ponyo, and the story isn’t as great as Princess Mononoke, the characters are endearing, thanks in part to the great voice performances, and you’re drawn in enough to follow their journey to its end. I would say it’s worth your time, but then again, I’m biased.

Next week: I will be posting a recap of the entire Catching the Miyazaki Classics series.

The Scream Factory Crypt Part 22: Cat People

Welcome to the Scream Factory Crypt! In this binge series I will be watching all my Scream Factory titles I own alphabetically! Scream Factory is my favorite imprint of Blu-Ray’s because they take movies that studios and the public might not adore but have fans and deserve to be given respect. This will take a long time as I have over 120(!) titles and counting, I know I will have more before I finish, so stay tuned! Not only will I talk about them on the podcast but I will review them here as well so you can see how I feel about aspects of each release.

Part 22 is the semi-erotic were-cat remake, Cat People!

Released in 1982, Paul Schrader’s Cat People wavers between surreal and reality, with a healthy dose of star Nastassja Kinski (billed as Nastassia Kinski) nude.

Kinski stars as Irena Gallier who leaves Canada to visit her brother Paul (Malcolm McDowell) who is living in New Orleans. The siblings were orphaned, Paul found himself in and out of psych wards and Irena was raised in foster care.

In the night a prostitute is attacked by a black panther. The panther is later captured and taken to the zoo. The next morning Paul is missing, Irena is told Paul most likely went on a mission and is told to enjoy New Orleans. Irena goes to the zoo and is drawn to the recently captured panther.

During the course of the film Irena soon learns that Paul is a werepanther and she too is one. Paul also makes sexual advances towards his (barf) sister and she fall in love with the zookeeper Oliver (John Heard).

Cat People is weird. It’s a mystery thriller with horror undertones. The gore is great, so too are the leads Kinski and McDowell, but the film waffles between genres and excuses to show Kinski nude that it can never achieve what made the original, 1942’s The Cat People fun. Although there are some great moments Cat People is nothing more than a gory/erotic werewolf/panther remake. It is fun to watch but it never rises above its B-movie trappings.

The video presentation of Cat People is a lot like the film. It has its moments where it is really great, but overall it isn’t very strong. The colors don’t always pop and details are not very strong. Servicable but not amazing.

The stereo presentation of Cat People however, is fantastic. The panther growls and the victim’s screams sound fantastic. The David Bowie theme song sounds amazing and the synth score is money.

The extras are a little light on Cat People, especially since this release was given a Collector’s Edition banner by Scream Factory. Consisting of 7 interviews that total roughly 45 minutes, Scream Factory was able to get the major players in the film including Kinski, McDowell, and Director Schrader. All the interviews are fun but feel a little brief. Also included is a trailer, TV Spot, Production Art and a photo gallery. Solid but not earth shattering.

Cat People is weird. It’s fun but ultimately it suffocates under the weight of its own B-Movie trappings. The Scream Factory Collector’s Edition should please fans of the film, for everyone else proceed with caution.

Film: C+

Video: B-

Audio: A

Extras: B-

Overall: B-

Show Time: Top 10 Movies That It Would Shock Me If You’ve Never Seen Them

For whatever reason, over the past month, I’ve had about four separate people blast me for never having seen Top Gun. (Don’t worry, that will soon be remedied in an upcoming iteration of “Catching the Classics.”) And, while I understand that Top Gun is a popular and iconic movie, I really don’t think it’s THAT big of a shocker that I haven’t seen it. It came out five years before I was born; it’s not exactly a kids’ movie or a family film, per se, even though it is rated PG; and neither of my parents owned it. And, of course, by the time I was grown up, all the pop culture talk had hyped it up so much and spoiled some of the major plot points for me so that I wasn’t really interested in watching it.

In doing the “Catching the Classics” series, I’ve come across a lot of movies that, for some reason or another, I had never seen before. Something like Jurassic Park, which came out in my life time and is a sort of family-friendly adventure movie, is hard to excuse, I will admit. But, then there are movies like Unforgiven or The Green Mile, both of which — even though they were released in my lifetime — are rated R. And, as I’ve discussed on the show before, I’m not a fan of dark, violent, brutal, R-rated movies, for the most part. While I enjoyed both films, they’re not the kind that I seek out in my day-to-day movie-watching experience. (Which is a good reason for doing the “Catching the Classics.”) Similarly, The Godfather, while iconic, is rated R and came out decades before I was born. Even my dad had never seen it up until maybe 10 years ago, and even he thought it was overrated. So, why would I have seen it? (Before doing CtC, that is.)

Anyway, because of all this, I wanted to put together a list of 10 movies that are actual classics that I feel like everyone has to have seen by now. (And by “everyone,” I mean your run-of-the-mill middle-class American audiences.) These are movies that — unlike many films on the IMDB Top 250 List or the AFI Top 100 List — are approachable, family friendly and seemingly on TV all the time.

This isn’t necessarily to say that these movies are perfect or even high-quality. But they’re beloved, for sure. Cult classics, family favorites, and movie marathons kind of stuff.

These are the movies that, if you haven’t seen them by now, you probably have less of an excuse than I have for never watching Top Gun.

If you haven’t seen this, I assume it’s because you’ve never owned a TV at any point in the last 30 years.

And, FYI: You’ll note that I cheated on a few of these entries.

#10: The Sound of Music

Granted, I’ve only ever seen this movie once, but it’s a classic that I know ABC Family or a similar channel used to play every Easter. It’s a long one, yes, made even longer by all the incessant commercials. But, again, I would be surprised if a friend or coworker told me they’d never seen it. Everyone knows “My Favorite Things” and “The Sound of Music” (the song), so that means most people have probably seen the movie at some point in their lives. Plus, it’s from 1965, so that means that even your 60-something coworker has probably seen it, too. And besides, who doesn’t love watching an adorable Austrian family escape the Nazis through the power of song… and some nuns who know how to disable cars?

#9: The Karate Kid (1984)

I feel like I’ve seen this movie on TV several times. It’s so iconic that they remade it in the 2000s with Jackie Chan and Jaden Smith. Everyone knows Mr. Miyagi, the crane kick and “wax on, wax off,” which is unfortunate, because it’s made everyone believe that you can learn martial arts by doing household chores. And, as someone who trained in martial arts for like 8 years, I can tell you: no, that’s not how it works. YOU. DO. NOT. LEARN. TO. BLOCK. BY. PAINTING. A. FENCE. I get that Mr. Miyagi was trying to help Daniel build muscle memory; and while painting fences and waxing cars may be similar movements, as my instructor used to say, “Practice doesn’t make perfect. *Perfect* practice makes perfect.” Meaning that if you want to have accurate muscle memory of the technique, you need to actually learn how to do the technique… not something similar to it. Anyway, sorry, I had to get on my soapbox for a second, but I’d be surprised if someone hadn’t seen this movie, given how accessible and pervasive it is.

#8: Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory

This is another movie that, yes, while it was based on existing source material, has also been remade. It’s full of iconic songs and other very weird but memorable scenes, some of which have become memes. Plus, I feel like they used to play it on ABC Family all the time, so I don’t know how someone — especially if they’re close to my age — could’ve avoided it.

#7: Either of the good Indiana Jones movies

Between the star power of Harrison Ford, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, I don’t know why anyone who was alive in 1981 didn’t see Raiders of the Lost Ark when it came out. And, then in 1989, when they added Sean Connery to the roster for The Last Crusade… how could anyone have missed these movies? Even I, who wasn’t alive when either of them came out, had seen each multiple times before I was in high school. Not only have they been on TV a lot as part of Indiana Jones movie marathons, especially when The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull came out in 2008… but I feel like the video cassettes were everywhere back when VCRs were a thing. And, of course anyone over 18 who’s somehow escaped seeing them up to this point can just watch them on Netflix or Amazon Prime, which has made them even more accessible.

#6: The Princess Bride

About five years ago now, when I was working at another job, we found out that one of our coworkers had never seen this movie. Of course, my work-friends and I all gave her a hard time, and one of us lent it to her so she could finally watch it. From what I recall, she enjoyed it, but didn’t think it was as good as we all had told her it was. But, for me, I can’t remember how old I was the first time I watched The Princess Bride. It’s a movie that, for many millennials and Gen-Xers, is so integral in our movie-watching lives; and, for myself, I have no idea how that came to be. Did my parents own it that we watched it on video? Did I see it on TV at some point? I’m sure it’s some combination of the two, but I genuinely don’t remember how or when or why I first saw this movie. I know it’s been on TV, and of course I think it’s made the rounds on Netflix at some point recently, but seemingly everyone I know has seen this movie, and I don’t know how. Was it just on TV all the time in the early 90s, and I don’t quite remember it? Or did everyone who was alive in 1987 go see in the theaters, buy it on video and then watch it with their kids when it came out? Who knows? But, it’s mega-popular, and people quote it all the time. So for someone to have not seen it is inconceivable! (Are you proud of me for how long I waited to do that joke?)

#5: Any of the Back to the Future movies

If you’ve had access to cable TV any time in the last 20 years, you’ve seen any or all of these movies. They are impossible to escape given how often ABC Family or TNT or whatever channel(s) show movie marathons of all three back-to-back-to-back. It’s so well-known that it’s becoming the shorthand for certain time travel concepts in other movies and TV shows like Avengers: Endgame or The Flash. Unlike The Terminator, which I’ve still never seen, this is a family-friendly time travel movie. So, how anyone over 14 hasn’t seen it is beyond me.

#4: The Wizard of Oz

As someone who is from Kansas, I cannot tell you how many times people have quoted this movie to me. “You’re not in Kansas anymore.” Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. Another classic movie that, given how old it is, I don’t know how people would’ve escaped seeing it on TV at some point. Even people in nursing homes nowadays may have seen it in the theaters when it first came out. This one hasn’t been on TV nearly to the same degree as the BTTF trilogy, but I feel like it’s a movie that if your family didn’t own it on video, your grandparents or aunts or uncles or friends probably did. So, someone who’s never seen it is as scary as flying monkeys and violent trees. Say a person reached 18 and still had never seen The Wizard of Oz. Given how pervasive it is in the cultural zeitgeist, I can’t see how they wouldn’t have checked it out as an adult just to see what all the fuss was about. (In the same way that I had to watch The Godfather, because it’s a ~classic~.)

#3: A Christmas Story

You all know why this is on the list, don’t you? Because of that frickin’ movie marathon every year on TBS. Really, I feel like movie marathons are sometimes more responsible for giving a movie ‘classic’ status — or at the very least, ‘cult classic’ status — than a movie’s actual quality. (It’s A Wonderful Life is another example of this.) I guarantee you more people between the ages of 20 and 40 have seen this than Unforgiven or Princess Mononoke, both of which are actually good movies. But, again, it comes down to how approachable and accessible a movie is, and not necessarily how good it is. Put a light, fun, holiday-themed movie on TV for 24 hours straight every year since 1997, and everyone will watch it at some point.

#2: Any animated Disney movie

Granted, this is one of those entries where I cheated, as it’s not an individual movie or even a movie series. This is a list of almost 60 separate films going back to 1937. But, there are people out there who don’t really like or watch Disney movies, or animated movies at all for that matter. I remember a few years ago, I was talking to my former editor, and he mentioned how he’d never seen The Lion King or Beauty & The Beast or basically any Disney movie from the last 35 years. Now, I have since clarified with him that he HAS seen some older ones — Bambi, The Jungle Book, etc. But while those are classics, the movies of the Disney Renaissance (1989-1999) are high-quality films that’d be pretty hard to miss, IMO. But, there’s a stigma out there (and granted, it seems to be lessening in recent years) that animated movies are only for kids and families. If you’re a Baby Boomer and you don’t have kids or grandkids, why would you watch Ralph Breaks the Internet or The Princess and the Frog? But, just because they’re animated and “for kids” doesn’t mean they’re not good. I’m an adult with no children or even nieces and nephews, and I still went to go see Moana in the theater. And, I had a great time! I’m sure there’s not many people out there who haven’t seen *a* Disney movie, but given how much I watched them as a kid, how much I still watch them, how pervasive they are in pop culture, and how accessible they’ve been on TV and now on Netflix… how could people possibly have not seen even just one?!

#1: Any of the Star Wars movies

So, I can think of three people I’ve encountered in my adult life who have never or only recently watched Star Wars movies. And, no, none of them are kids.

One is a family friend who’s in his 60s now and doesn’t really go to a lot of movies. Still, he would’ve been in his 20s when Star Wars came out in 1977… but he told me, when The Force Awakens came out a few years ago, that he went to see it DESPITE NEVER HAVING SEEN ANY OF THE OTHER STAR WARS MOVIES?!!?!? Then again, at least he’s seen one.

About five years ago, when I was still living in Kansas and went to visit my best friend, we were figuring out what we were going to watch for a movie night. Her roommate, whom I was also sort-of friends with, overheard our discussion and made a comment about how she’d never seen Star Wars. Any of them. My jaw hit the floor.

And then, as I was writing this, I was chatting with a former coworker (the one who’d lent out The Princess Bride to our other coworker) about this post, and he reminded me that *another* one of my former coworkers still hasn’t seen Star Wars. (This is NOT the same one who hadn’t seen TPB, though.) I did a verbal double-take. “What?! Did you just say she’s never seen Star Wars?” And he reminded me that we’d already had this conversation with her years ago, when I still worked there. “You must’ve blotted it from your memory,” he said, because he knows how outraged I was about it.

Granted, I say this as someone who grew up with two sets of the Star Wars 1995 VHS collection, all sorts of action figures and — once The Phantom Menace came out in 1999 — bed sheets and pillow cases and even more action figures. Like, I shit you not, I had seen every movie in the original trilogy about a half-dozen times each before my first day of kindergarten! I literally do not remember watching any of those movies for the first time, that’s how young I was. (I imagine we’ll talk about this more when The Rise of Skywalker comes out.)

I mean, if people told me they’d never seen The Godfather or Shawshank Redemption or Citizen Kane or Casablanca, I’d kind of understand. The first two are more modern classics, sure, but they’re dark, violent and rated R. And while Citizen Kane and Casablanca are iconic in terms of Old Hollywood and movie tropes and whatnot, I get that not everyone my age grew up with parents who liked old movies. (Gone With The Wind was another one I watched a lot as a kid. My parents are weird.)

But, if you tell me that you’ve never seen any Star Wars movie — which is not only mega-iconic but there are movie marathons of them on TV all the time — you better be an immigrant or Amish or something, because otherwise, you’ve definitely lost cool points in my eyes. (And, who knows, maybe that doesn’t bother you.)

Some Final Thoughts

I realize, of course, that this is subjective. While I think it’s ridiculous if someone hasn’t seen The Wizard of Oz, others will think it’s insane that I’ve never seen Top Gun. Perhaps they grew up in a home where their mom or dad loved Top Gun and had it on VHS, and they’d seen it 20 times before they were in high school; and maybe they didn’t grow up with cable TV like I did, so they never saw the marathons of A Christmas Story or Back to the Future on TV. Maybe.

Our experiences will differ, obviously. What is a classic in my eyes might be a “I’ve heard people talk about it before but I’ve never bothered to watch it” kind of film for you. And, vice versa. Hence why I’m doing the “Catching the Classics” series.

Of course, I can understand why, if people have gone so long without seeing it, they might not ever want to. With some of these CtC episodes, I’m finding out that watching a movie where plot points and character reveals have been ruined for you by cultural osmosis can be a disappointing or underwhelming experience. “I don’t get why people love this so much. What’s the big deal?” My reaction to watching Se7en for the first time wasn’t so different from my former coworker’s when she first saw The Princess Bride.

And, I certainly understand that not everyone has the time or inclination to seek out these missed classics the way I have. But, if you do have the time and energy, you should… if only so you can maybe better understand the people around you and what is is about these movies that they love so much.

And, in the case of Top Gun, I’m assuming it’s the shirtless volleyball.

Month: August 2019